K.L.BERWA Vs. DPCL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated May 23, 1996 whereby the petitioner was imposed a penalty of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for his future employment with the respondent and order dated January 31, 1997 received by the petitioner on February 12, 1997 of the Appellate Authority, whereby it had rejected the Appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal referred above.

(2.) Some of the relevant facts as pleaded by the petitioner are, petitioner joined the erstwhile DESU which was renamed as DVB on February 14, 1980 as Meter Reader. In March, 1990 as averred by the petitioner he filed an internal report stating electricity theft in Devli extension area. A chargesheet dated August 5, 1994 was served on the petitioner inter alia alleging that while working as Meter Reader during the year 1990-91, he with malafide intention and with a view to extend benefit to the consumer, did not record the reading of meter installed against K. No. 173298 registered in the name of Sh. Balbir Singh at Premises No. A-141, Devli Extension in the month of May, 1990. Further the Connection No. 173298 sanctioned for domestic purposes, was being used for INDL/COMML Purposes and the LV mains were illegally / unauthorizedly extended to other premises. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not issue ST-II and ST-VII to his MSR (D) Reporting that the meter was not read and supply was being misused and extended to other premises in violation of order dated May 29, 1982. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who vide report dated July 6, 1995 has found the charge, as proved against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, on February 19, 1996, the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. The reply to the enquiry report was given by the petitioner on March 29, 1996. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry officer imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner vide the impugned order dated May 23, 1996. The petitioner submitted an Appeal dated June 17, 1996 which appeal was rejected vide order dated January 31, 1997, which was received by the petitioner on February 12, 1997.

(3.) It was argued by Mr. Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of removal is an unreasoned order inasmuch as none of the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice were considered by the disciplinary authority, who simply agreed with the conclusion of guilt as found by the Enquiry Officer. In this respect, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984 and also G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and Ors. JT 2010 (3) SC 75 to contend that there should be application of mind. Similar was the plea of Mr. Singh that grounds raised in the Appeal have not been adverted to by the Appellate Authority. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Directorate (Marketing) Indian Oil Corporation Lt. and Anr. V. Santosh Kumar JT 2006 Vol. (7) SC 31. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Ors. V. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, Civil Appeal No. 7600/2013 decided on January 2, 2017. That apart it is his case that, obligation of the Appellate Authority to record reasons stems out from Section 17 of the Delhi Electric Undertaking DMC Rules (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. That apart, it was the submission of Mr. Singh that in the present case, the determination of penalty was done even before calling for reply and consideration of the representation made by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice which according to him is clear from the show-cause notice itself. In other words, it was his submission that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was with a pre-determined mind. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Mahesh Dahiya reported as 2017 2 SCC 768. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in JT 1990 Vol. VI SC 62. Even on the conduct of departmental enquiry, his submission was that the material witness namely Gyan Dev Vats was not produced in the enquiry. According to him, it was the case of the petitioner that no meter-sheet was inserted in the meter-reading book to enable him to record the meter reading of the concerned consumer and in that regard, the respondents had relied upon the statement given by Gyan Dev Vats to the Vigilance Department in the year 1992. According to him, concedingly Gyan Dev Vats was not even made a witness. He stated, the petitioner did object to the non-appearance of the said witness, who was the custodian of all the meter-books, billing ledger, diary register etc. According to him, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardwari Lal v. State of UP and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 277. That apart it was his submission that the proceedings shall be hit by delay and latches inasmuch as the subject matter of the charge was of the year 1990 whereas the chargesheet was issued in the year 1995, i.e., after expiry of a period of 5 years because of which the petitioner could not remember the sequence of events which transpired at the relevant point of time. In this regard, he would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Hari Singh, W.P.(C) 4245/2013 decided on September 23, 2013. He also pleaded discrimination inasmuch one G.C. Sharma who was also a meter reader and against whom identical charges of non-reporting the use of electricity supply were framed was imposed a penalty of withholding of three annual increments without cumulative effect. He also challenged the Joint Inspection Report to contend that the meter installed at Premises A-141, Village-Devli Extension was not inspected by the authorities at all as the meter number in the inspection report and the meter book is not the same and further the connection number could not be ascertained by the inspecting authorities. In such circumstances, the very foundation of the charge that the petitioner has not recorded the reading of the meter installed against Connection No. 173298 does not hold ground as it is not proved that the inspecting authorities had really done inspection of the meter installed against Connection No. 173298. He prays for the reliefs as sought in the petition.