BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Vs. S.R. TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent herein was working as Assistant Engineer AE (D) MYR in Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). With the disintegration of DVB and creation of various discounts including BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (appellant herein), services of the respondent were taken over by the appellant. While the respondent was in service with DVB, orders dated 14th March, 2000 were passed awarding penalty of reduction in minimum pay scale of AE till his retirement. This order was challenged by the respondent by filing writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. As in the meantime respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, while setting aside the impugned orders dated 14th March, 2000, the learned Single Judge, without granting arrears of pay, has directed that his retiral, pensionary and other benefits will be re -worked as if no such punishment was given. It is also directed that if the respondent was denied any promotion as a result of the impugned order, those promotions will also be granted to him from the respective dates when they became due to him. Some other directions on payment of interest etc. on the arrears of retiral and pensionary benefits are also given.

(2.) THE respondent was served with charge sheet dated 24th September, 1993 levelling following two charges:

(3.) THE respondent denied the charges on various grounds and it is not necessary to spell out the same which are mentioned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. What is relevant is that the inquiry officer, after conducting the inquiry, returned his findings holding that these charges had not been proved. The disciplinary authority, however, did not agree with the findings of the IO and issued show cause notice dated 21st December, 1998 to the respondent calling upon him to explain why punishment of reduction in the present scale of pay by two stages for the period of two years with cumulative effect be not imposed on him. The respondent gave detailed reply dated 14th January, 1999. The DVB slept over the matter for almost eight months and on 24 th September, 1999, second show cause notice was issued to the respondent stating that the Board had considered his reply and decided to ask him to show cause why the penalty of removal from service should not be awarded. It was opined by the Board that some of the group housing societies continue to illegally draw power from the service line even after disconnection of temporary supply and this could not happen without the knowledge and connivance of the area inspector, namely, the respondent. The respondent submitted reply dated 3rd December, 1999 to this show cause notice also. Thereafter, on 14th March, 2000, impugned orders were passed imposing the penalty of "reduction in the minimum of the present scale of pay as AE till retirement".