D. K. SHARMA Vs. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner impugns the orders passed by the departmental authorities; of the disciplinary authority dated 29.1.1998 and appellate authority dated 24.6.1998; whereby penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner of reduction of pay by one stage in the same time scale for a period of one year with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of the period of reduction the penalty order will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. This penalty order was passed by the appellate authority by reducing the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and which was of reduction in pay by three stages in the same time scale for a period of one year.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues before me only one point with respect to the date of imposition of penalty. It is argued that in the present case enquiry officer's report came on 23.5.1994, however the show cause notice was issued exactly one year later on 22.5.1995 and even this show cause notice dated 22.5.1995 was never served upon the petitioner much much later till 15.9.1997. It is argued that punishment ought to have been imposed on the same date or at least in around the same period in which other chargesheeted officials were imposed similar penalties. It is relevant to note that by the subject chargesheet dated 18.10.1989 three employees were proceeded against, namely Sh. D.K. Sharma petitioner who was a junior clerk, Sh. M.G. Ahluwalia who was commercial superintendent and Sh. S.P. Sharma who was an inspector. Essentially what is argued is that once the penalty is of reduction of pay, delay in passing of the penalty order would mean higher monetary loss to the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. The effect of delay in imposition of penalty has various consequences and domino effect with respect to postponing of increase of pay, delayed promotions and so on.

(3.) THE only statement which is found in the counter affidavit with respect to delay in imposition of punishment upon the petitioner pertains to delay in receiving advice from CVC. In my opinion, this defence is without any merit because issue is really not of delay in advice from CVC but delay in issuance of show cause notice pursuant to the enquiry officer's report and the delay in serving of the enquiry officer's report itself. Therefore, in my opinion, petitioner has made out a case of his being treated similarly with the other charged officials, namely Sh. M.G. Ahluwalia and Sh. S.P. Sharma. I may note that there is nothing on record as to when the disciplinary authority passed the punishment orders on Sh. M.G. Ahluwalia and Sh. S.P. Sharma. However, counsel for the parties appearing before me agree that whatever is the date of imposition/passing of penalty orders against Sh. M.G. Ahluwalia and Sh. S.P. Sharma, that date will be taken with respect to passing of the penalty order against the petitioner in this case.