SHARAD CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 20 th April 1998 suspending the Petitioner from service and the subsequent order dated 24 th April 1998 passed by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU?), which was subsequently reconstituted as the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB?), dismissing the Petitioner from service. It may be mentioned that the Respondent has since been substituted by the Delhi Transco Limited (DTL?) by an order dated 11 th November 2008 of this Court.

(2.) The Petitioner was initially appointed on 7 th October 1968 as a Junior Clerk in the DESU. He was subsequently confirmed in the said post by an order dated 21 st June 1972. By an order dated 14 th May 1985 he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and was assigned the job of a Vigilance Inspector on 10 th July 1985. The Petitioner worked in the Vigilance Department up to 22 nd October 1990. The Petitioner states that his work as Vigilance Inspector was appreciated and he received a cash award of Rs. 500/- by letter dated 26 th July 1990 of the Assistant General Manager (A). He was again posted in the Vigilance Department of the DVB by an order dated 10 th January 1997 and assigned the job of Sub Inspector in the same scale of Senior Clerk. The Petitioner states that after the Petitioner was assigned the above job a time bound case was sent to him by the Director of Vigilance in February 1997 for fixing the responsibility upon the officers of the DVB for not lodging an FIR for more than four years against M/s. Subh Metal (P) Limited. The Petitioner states that he submitted a final report after investigation wherein a number of officers of the DVB were identified for not lodging the FIR against the said company. Of the 11 officers identified by the Petitioner, one of them was proceeded against and despite the registration of a vigilance case and a major penalty proceedings against him, he continued working as Assistant Engineer in the zone. It is stated by the Petitioner that by way of reprisal the Petitioner was trapped by the anti-corruption branch on 16 th April 1998 on false and motivated grounds.

(3.) On 20 th April, 1998 an order was passed placing the Petitioner under suspension under Regulation 4 (2) (A) of the DESU (DMC) Service (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 ( 'Regulations?) noting the arrest of the Petitioner on 16 th April, 1998 in a trap case and further that an FIR No. 10 had been registered against the Petitioner. This was followed by a second impugned order dated 24 April, 1998 in which the Petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any enquiry under the Regulations. The Additional General Manager who passed the order opined that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry following the procedure prescribed under Regulations 7, 8 and 9 of the Regulations.