SATNAM SINGH PABLA Vs. DELHI POWER COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Mr Vikram Nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent, has assisted me in the matter and taken me through the record. The prayer in the petition is directed against the order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the respondent in appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 29.07.1999. To be noted, since the writ petitioner had also preferred a review qua the order dated 19.10.2000 an order was passed by the respondent dated 13.03.2001 whereby the review petition was also dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the writ petitioner's case is that he had joined the respondent's predecessor-in-interest, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in 1968 as an apprentice. Since the respondent got morphed into its present avatar, which is the Delhi Power Company Limited, the writ petitioner had continued in service. The writ petitioner claims to have obtained a number of promotions and it is his averment that he was promoted to the post of Shift Officer in 1992.

(3.) Mr Nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent, does not dispute the fact that the proceedings were conducted ex-parte and after the service of the memorandum dated 08.09.1997 on the writ petitioner, no other notices were served on the petitioner at his Canadian address. Resultantly, the notices sent to the writ petitioner at his Delhi address were received back. The inquiry officer, finally concluded his proceedings and submitted an inquiry report dated 10.08.1998.