BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD Vs. S S GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2007 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge. The trial judge vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.2001 had dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff Sh. S.S. Gupta which had sought declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that the enquiry report filed against him is illegal and violative of the rules of natural justice; further the penalty of 10% reduction in his pension for a period of three years also be declared as illegal and arbitrary. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. The suit of the Plaintiff stood decreed.

(2.) The Plaintiff had joined the service of the Defendant i.e. Delhi Vidyut Board as an Inspector in 1962. After 31 years of service, he retired as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 29.02.1992. His service record was unblemished. Contention is that 15 days before his retirement, he was charge sheeted on the allegation that he had sanctioned four electricity connections without verifying the proof of lawful occupancy as was required under the provisions of DECO 1959. Two other charges were framed against him. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer exonerated him from the other charges but held him guilty for sanctioning of four electricity connections without verifying the proofs of lawful occupancy. The Disciplinary Authority thereupon imposed the penalty of 10% cut in the pension of the Plaintiff for five years. In appeal, the period of penalty was reduced from 5 years to three years. The acts of the Defendant were unreasonable; no financial loss had accrued to the Defendant; there was no charge of mala fide; pension rules had also been violated. Suit was accordingly filed seeking a declaration to this effect that the enquiry conducted against him was illegal and the consequential punishment imposed was also illegal.

(3.) In the written statement, the allegations were denied. It was stated that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice; all opportunities to defend were granted to the Plaintiff. It was stated that the Plaintiff was involved in a vigilance case of 1992 where the major penalty had been imposed upon him on 08.12.1997. The Plaintiff was guilty of the charge for which he had been charge sheeted in the present case as well; without verification of the lawful occupancy of the person which was mandatory in terms of the rules of the DECO 1959, the electricity connections had been granted to four persons. The enquiry report had been confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Court had reduced the penalty imposed upon the delinquent.