SHRI TRILOKI NATH, S/O LATE SHRI RAI SINGH Vs. THE DELHI POWER COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DELHI VIDYUT BOARD EMPLOYEES TERMINAL FUND 2002

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 funding 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 with the following order : - 'Departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and thereafter he was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The present writ petition challenging the imposition of this penalty has been filed inter alias on the ground that under the Rules of the respondent no such punishment is specified. This very question came up for consideration in CW 5238/99 entitled Budh Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board and Anr. and Vide judgment dated 15th December, 1999 I took the view that such penalty which was not prescribed in the rules could not be imposed. When this matter came up for hearing on 2nd February, 2000 in view of the aforesaid decision, counsel for the respondent stated that respondents are reconsidering the matter and may withdraw the impugned order and take appropriate action prescribed under the rules. Mr. P.K. Saxena; Legal Assistant of Respondent/Delhi Vidyut Board, who is present in the court submits that the Board has withdrawn earlier impugned order dated 21st July, 1999 vide which the petitioner was imposed the penalty to compulsory retirement. he further submits that the Board will take fresh action after sending note of dissent to the petitioner as it has disagreed with the findings of enquiry officer and after giving him opportunity to make the representation. As the impugned order dated 21st July, 1999 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner with effect from July 23, 1999 stands withdrawn, the effect of this will be that the petitioner be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. However, the respondent will be at liberty to pass fresh orders in according with law. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.'

(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 v. Shri Tajinder Khanna and Anr. Contempt Petition No. 8/19098 in CWP No. 4041/1994 decided on 24.4.1998.