M.S. GEHLOT Vs. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Meter Reader with respondent, was charged of conniving with one Umed Singh whose premises, he had checked in February, March and April, 1994, but had not reported about large scale theft of electricity which was taking place at the factory premises of said Umed Singh in Peeragarhi, Delhi. In the departmental inquiry, petitioner was exonerated by Inquiry Officer, who in order of 13th May, 1999 (Annexure P-5) had accepted petitioner's stand that there was no theft of electricity at the time of petitioner's visits to premises of Umed Singh and so, no question of sending any report or intimation of theft to higher authorities was called for.

(2.) The Disciplinary Authority vide its order of 4th February, 2000 (Annexure P-9) had disagreed with the Inquiry Officer and came to the conclusion that penalty of removal from service is called for, but had imposed the penalty of reduction of petitioner's pay scale to minimum for a period of five years with stipulation that he will not earn any increments during the period of reduction and after the expiry of period of five years, it will have the impact of postponing the future increments of pay. Petitioner's departmental appeal was dismissed vide order of 31st May, 2000 (Annexure P-11).

(3.) The challenge to impugned order (Annexure P-11) by petitioner's counsel is on the ground that the reasoning of Inquiry Officer has not been considered by Appellate Authority, which renders impugned order (Annexure P-11) perverse and so, it needs to be set aside. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that when petitioner had inspected the premises of Umed Singh, there was only one electric meter, which was visible and whatever reading it had disclosed, the same was reflected by petitioner and since there was no theft of electricity, therefore, there was no question of petitioner recommending lodging of FIR against Umed Singh. Reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon Joint Inspection Report of 13th July, 1994 (Annexure P-1), which is the basis of the charge against petitioner, to submit that the other meter discovered by the Joint Inspection Team was inside the room and in normal course, petitioner could not have had access to it and so, the charge against petitioner is perverse on the face of it and thus, impugned order deserves to be set aside, with all consequential benefits.