D.P. SHARMA Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. (C) 2676/1998.

(2.) A limited issue is urged on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order which has been passed by the Departmental Authorities. Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by five stages in the same time scale for a period of five years with further stipulation that petitioner will not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and which will have the effect of postponing of future increments of pay. The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. What the counsel for the petitioner argues is that Disciplinary Authority in the present case while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion of guilt and then issued a show -cause notice only with respect to the penalty, and which is therefore illegal. It is argued that when the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority can only make a tentative finding and not a conclusive one, and the show cause notice which has to be issued cannot be for the penalty to be proposed, but has to be as to whether or not the findings of the Enquiry Officer should be set aside. The show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority in the present case is, therefore, argued as being illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Baljit Singh Sondhi, : 173 (2010) DLT 346 (DB) wherein the Division Bench of this Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Badge vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., : (1999) 7 SCC 739 to hold that the Disciplinary Authority can only have a tentative view but it cannot give a final finding of guilt without hearing the charged official, and thereafter simply issue a show cause notice for a particular penalty. Paras 9 to 14 of the judgment in Union of India vs. Baljit Singh Sondhi (supra) read as under:

(3.) A reading of the second last para of the show cause notice shows that Disciplinary Authority has arrived at a finding that the charge against the petitioner stands fully proved. The last para of the show cause notice shows that the same has been issued only for imposing a particular penalty. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Badge vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (supra) applies and the show -cause notice is clearly illegal.