PREM NATH BALI Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as UDC and incharge of Copying Agency (Criminal) at Patiala House was served with a charge memo dated 10th July, 1990 on a complaint made by Ms. Brij Bala Goel, LDC in the Copying Agency. It was reported by her to officer incharge of Patiala House that she closed the application register for supplying certified copies at 1 p. m. on 22nd January, 1990. However, some applications which were not even entered in the register on that day were entered in CD2/dak register subsequently. Certified copies were got prepared of those applications on the same date. She was also pressurised to deliver the copies on the same date at 2. 30 p. m. However, when she refused to deliver the copy, the petitioner quarreled with her. The other allegation levelled against the petitioner was for using unwanted words in the office, which were uncalled for.

(2.) THIS complaint was forwarded to the learned District Judge and on that basis a preliminary enquiry was made. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was also held against the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner was served with memorandum dated 18th July, 1990, accompanied with the statement of articles of charges and other relevant documents. The articles of charges are as under:

(3.) THE enquiry was initially marked to Ms. Kanwal Inder, Additional district Judge and later on was also marked to two other judges. However, finally, the enquiry was concluded by Shri S. N. Dhingra, District Judge (now justice S. N. Dhingra ). The record shows that there was a delay in completion of enquiry for which the petitioner himself was to be blamed squarely. As per the enquiry report given, all the charges including the charge of interpolation of the entries in the registers maintained in the copying agency were proved against the petitioner.