TRILOKI NATH Vs. DELHI POWER COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the issuance of order/memo dated 15.3.2000 issued by the respondent, inter alia, stating respondent's disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer. Law is well-settled that the disciplinary authority can, if satisfied otherwise, disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer, however, in such eventuality the charged officer has to be given show cause notice so as to enable him to reply to the disciplinary authority.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Board of the respondent on 22.2.2002 itself made up its mind that the petitioner was to be removed from the service. It was contended that the petitioner's reply to the said memo dated 15.3.2000 was not even considered and the whole purpose of giving a show cause notice or reasonable opportunity was defeated as the decision to remove the petitioner from service had been taken by the Board before the said notice dated 15.3.2000 was issued. It was further contended that petitioner had filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing no.4487/1999 against the compulsory retirement on the same charges. The petitioner was compulsorily retired pursuant to the order passed by the respondent on 23.7.1999, The said writ petition was disposed of by this court w.ith the following order : -

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order was passed by this Court on 14.3.2000 and the memo issued on 15.3.2000 was in total disregard to the order passed by this Court as well as to circumvent the order passed by this Court. In this connection, reliance has been paced by the counsel for the petitioner on Shri I S Sandhu.......Vs.....Shri.......Tajinder........Khanna. &.............anr... Contempt Petition no.8/19098 in CUP no.4041/1994 decided on 24.4.1998.