RAJEEV SAPRA Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated

(2.) 12.1998 and 17.05.1999 passed by the Chairman of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and seeking quashing thereof. 2. The petition arises this way. The petitioner joined DVB as Inspector (T) in October, 1988 and while discharging duties for the employer in Zone Prehaladpur, District Bawana, North-West Delhi he was assaulted by some miscreants and suffered fracture. He, therefore, remained hospitalized from 02.03.1992 to 18.03.1992. During this period he was on medical leave. He joined duties on 20.03.1992. On 11.11.1994 a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on the ground that while he was working as Inspector in Zone No.516(D) BWM during period 1992-93 he failed to report to the employer the unauthorized erection of 5 electricity poles/ service lines by a private agency in the land adjacent to M/s. Bombay Biscuit Factory in the area of village Shahbad Daulatpur. The poles/ service lines were erected for the purpose of committing theft of electricity for the residents of that area. The petitioner was earlier issued a memorandum on 16.09.1994 asking him to submit his explanation within 10 days as to why he did not prevent/ report the erection of the pole and the theft of the electricity to the concerned officer. This was considered to have caused heavy financial loss to the DVB. In the charge-sheet the petitioner was charged with having failed to maintain absolute integrity and having shown lack of devotion to the duty and having acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant by violating Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964 as applicable to the employees of DVB.

(3.) AN inquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges. He submitted a detailed inquiry report which is Annexure-F to the writ petition. Ultimately the inquiry officer arrived at the finding that the petitioner himself came to know about the erection of unauthorized poles/ service lines only after 24.03.1992, by which time the DVB itself had come to know of those poles on 16.03.1992 itself. The inquiry officer further observed that it was therefore possible that the poles were erected when the petitioner was on medical leave and could not have come to know about the same. This was the reason, according to the inquiry officer, why the petitioner had not given information to his superior officers about the unauthorized installation. Having said that, the inquiry officer proceeded to observe that the petitioner cannot be fully absolved of his responsibility as he ought to have informed his superior officers about the unauthorized poles/ service lines at least immediately after the joint inspection team had conducted an inspection of the site on 16.03.1992. The enquiry officer further refers to the fact that the petitioner made serious efforts to get police help to get the unauthorised poles removed after 19.05.1992 on which date he received information about those poles. However, the police did not take prompt action and the visit of the police party to the site on 27.05.1992 proved inadequate. Significantly, the inquiry officer completely absolved the petitioner of the charge that he was aware of the existence of the unauthorised poles/ service lines and had connived with the consumers with a malafide intention and ulterior motives. On this aspect, according to the inquiry officer, no evidence had come on record. In fact, he stated that the identity of the consumers or the elements who had illegally erected poles/ service lines and committed theft have not even been established during the enquiry as testified by the prosecution witnesses, particularly the witness PW-5, who had investigated the case in the vigilance department. No evidence was also found, according to the inquiry officer to prove the ulterior motives or malafide intention of the petitioner. Eventually, the inquiry officer recorded the following conclusion: -