NATHIMAL GUPTA Vs. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner who was an employee of erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board and thereafter of the present respondent -Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited (IPGCL), impugns the orders passed by the departmental authorities; of the disciplinary authority dated 24.8.2001 and the appellate authority dated 10.9.2002; imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of removal from services. Petitioner, an Inspector with the Delhi Vidyut Board, was found guilty of stealing an electricity meter which was installed at one connection in one premises and thereafter he had illegally installed the same at another premises after receiving a bribe of Rs. 10,000/ -. The facts of the case are that a raid of the enforcement officials of Delhi Vidyut Board was conducted on 10.6.1999 at the premises B -271, Yojana Vihar, Delhi. The raid comprised of many officers of Delhi Vidyut Board, who also had prepared the inspection report of the said date. In the inspection, it was found that at the premises B -271, Yojana Vihar, Delhi, the stolen meter bearing No. E -9705279 was installed, and which meter actually was installed and thus ought to have been found at the premises No. 75A, Pocket -F, GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Inspection of the records maintained by the DVB with respect to the electricity connection, and records particularly of the Meter Testing Department (MTD), showed that actually the meter number legally installed at the premises at Dilshad Garden was installed and illegally put at the premises at Yojna Vihar, Delhi. FIR No. 157/99 was lodged on 22.3.2009 with respect to the theft of the meter. Statements were recorded of the persons of the Dilshad Garden premises namely Shri Ashok Kumar Anand and of Shri Suchit Kumar Jain of the Yojana Vihar premises where the stolen meter was found to be installed. At the premises where the stolen meter was installed, an amount of Rs. 1,42,720/ - was found to be due on account of electricity consumption as per a bill which was not paid. Accordingly, a charge -sheet dated 26.7.1999 was issued against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was thereafter appointed. Evidence was led by both the parties in the inquiry proceedings. The department led evidence of as many as six witnesses including the persons who conducted the raid on the premises at Yojana Vihar and found the stolen meter. Department also filed and proved various documents including the report of the inspecting team, meter issuing docket for installation at the first premises at Dilshad Garden, of provisional installation of the stolen meter at Dilshad Garden, the electricity bill of Rs. 1,42,720/ - showing unpaid amount for consumption of electricity at the new premises at Yojana Vihar, FIR No. 157/1999 dated 22.3.1999 with respect to the theft of the stolen meter etc. Petitioner, herein, only led the evidence of one witness, namely, Shri Kamal Rameshwar as DW -1. It may be noted that the petitioner did not step into the witness box and depose in his own favour in the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer, on the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, submitted his report dated 19.7.2000 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. As already stated above, this inquiry report has been accepted by the departmental authorities imposing the punishment of removal from services upon the petitioner. I may note that the Enquiry Officer's report is a detailed report of 30 pages wherein all proved documents have been referred to, the depositions of the witnesses, their cross -examination and their re -examination have been reproduced and thereafter conclusions have been given. It has been held by the Enquiry Officer by reference to the documents and depositions of the witnesses that the meter number which was found at the premises of Yojana Vihar was in fact originally installed at Dilshad Garden and the same was found illegally installed at the Yojana Vihar premises. It was found that the meter number in question was E -9705279. The confusion was as to whether the last digit '9' was there or not in the meter which was found at the premises at the Yojana Vihar, was got confirmed from the records of the department and thereafter comparing the same with the number of meter embossed on the dial of the meter. Electricity meter in question was thereafter handed over to the Police as the criminal case with respect to the same was going on as per FIR number 157/1999 dated 22.3.1999. The Inquiry Officer has accordingly given the following conclusion: -

(2.) BEFORE I turn to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary at this stage to set out what is the scope of a hearing before a Court hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which orders passed by the departmental authorities are challenged. It is settled law that this Court does not sit as an Appellate Court while hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court does not re -apprise findings of facts and conclusions arrived at by the departmental authority. This Court can only interfere if the findings and conclusions are perverse or against the principles of natural justice or the findings and conclusions are against the rules of the employer organization/law.

(3.) BEFORE me on behalf of the petitioner, the following arguments are urged: -