S K JETLY Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, on the allegations that he joined as Inspector with the respondents some time in 1970 and on 17th July, 1986 was promoted to the post of Superintendent (Technical). Sometime in September, 1991 he was summoned, purportedly as a witness by the Vigilance Department. The concerned vigilance officer ascertained from him about the details, which had led to certain discrepancies in the stock of copper scrap, PVC cable, FRLT tape, PVC and black tape. It is alleged that on 29th December, 1992, a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened to consider the promotion of Superintendents within the zone of considertion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner's name was also on the panel. The Departmental Promotion Committee, for the reasons best known to it, did not promote the petitioner despite his having an excellent service record. About 23 officers junior to him were promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 31st December, 1992. It is prayed that by issuing an appropriate writ the respondens be directed to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 31st December,1992 and the record of the proceedings dated 29th December, 1992 of the Departmental Promotion Committee may be summoned.

(2.) In response to show cause notice DESU, respondent No. 1 filed its reply on the affidavit of B.K.Sharma, ALO. It is not denied that the petitioner was appointed as Superintendent (T) on adhoc basis on 18th July, 1986 and was regularised in the cadre on 17th September, 1987. However, it is stated that presently two vigilance cases - one under Reg-8 (Minor Penalty) VC No.471-472/92 and the other under Reg-7 (Major penalty) VC No-636-639/92 are pending against the petitioner. In February, 1992 a surprise inspection was conducted by the Vigilance Department and shortage of 3159 kgs. of copper scrap valued at Rs.3.8 lakhs was detected. Petitioner being the Incharge of store had failed to exercise proper and effective supervision over the functioning of the store as he allowed the handing over / taking over charge between the Store Keepers without proper verification as required under the rules, which led to large scale shortage of copper scrap in the store causing huge financial loss to DESU. Major penalty proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in that behalf. Further, for lack of supervision in the functioning of store, which too resulted in large scale shortage of store material, minor penalty proceedings have also been initiated against him. Charge-sheets in both the cases have been served on the petitioner. It is stated that Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 28th December, 1992 to consider the cases of eligible Superintendents for ad-hoc promotion to the posts of A.E./A.XEN (E/M) in the scale of Rs. 2200.00-4100.00. However, petitioner could not be recommended for promotion due to the pendency of two vigilance cases against him though his juniors were promoted on ad-hoc basis.

(3.) In the rejoinder petitioner alleged that no chargesheet was issued or served on him till DPC met and the respondents are trying to side- track the issue by relying on certain false charges, which were levelled against him subsequent to the date of Departmental Promotion Committee. It is denied that any vigilance case was pending against the petitioner on 28th December, 1992.