DHARAMPAL Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, erstwhile employee of the Delhi Vidyut Board (now Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited), impugning the departmental proceedings against him whereby the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 24.3.2000 imposed the major penalty of reduction by five stages in his present scale of pay for a period of five years with further stipulation that during the period of reduction he will not earn any increments of pay and on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay and which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 12.12.2000. The Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner but the Disciplinary Authority upset the report and imposed the aforesaid penalty upon the petitioner.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner only one aspect is very strenuously argued, and which is that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order dated 24.3.2000 in terms of the show cause notice dated 12.5.1998, but this show cause notice dated 12.5.1998 is not to give a hearing to the petitioner for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but this show cause notice dated 12.5.1998 is in fact a judgment holding the petitioner guilty and show cause notice is given only with respect to imposition of penalty. This alleged show cause notice, which is in fact a decision ex parte disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, reads as under:-

(3.) I agree with the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner because sub-paras of this Memorandum dated 12.5.1998 quoted above show that the Disciplinary Authority has already disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has held the petitioner guilty without hearing the petitioner. The last para on the first page and which is the 6th para of the Memorandum dated 12.5.1998 only issues show cause notice for the imposition of penalty. Therefore, the Memorandum dated 12.5.1998 holds the petitioner guilty by disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 27.6.1996 and a show cause is issued only on the aspect of quantum of penalty to be imposed against the petitioner, and this aspect of setting aside the Enquiry Officer's report has been done without hearing the petitioner as to why the Enquiry Officer's report should not be set aside i.e the Enquiry Officer's report has been set aside ex parte against the petitioner.