PUSHKAR KAPOOR Vs. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be a Junior Officer with respondent for last about one decade, and was departmentally proceeded against after being charge-sheeted on 22nd November, 2016 for exhibiting unwillingness to work in the transferred group. The Inquiry Officer vide Inquiry Report of 6 th June, 2017 held that the charges framed against petitioner stood proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order of 4th July, 2017 (Annexure-G) concurred with the Report of the Inquiry Officer and inflicted the penalty of "removal from service" upon petitioner.

(2.) In the statutory appeal filed by petitioner, it was averred that the penalty inflicted is disproportionate to the charges framed and that period of two months only has been considered to arbitrarily arrive at a conclusion that petitioner was unwilling to work. It is asserted in the appeal that petitioner has meritorious service of ten years and there were two persons, including petitioner, responsible for round-the-clock duty, whereas after petitioner's removal from service, three persons were deputed and although petitioner had worked under the supervision and control of more than seven officers, only one officer Praveen Singh Saini had reported against him and the evidence of defence witness-S. Hariharan, Manager (HR) has not been considered by the Inquiry Officer. The stand taken by petitioner in the appeal is that despite tendering unconditional apology to the charges framed, penalty of "removal from service" has been inflicted upon him, which is unjustified, as petitioner was recommended for Shabash Award by Commercial Manager D-PPR. Appellate Authority vide order of 13th October, 2017 (Annexure-I) has dismissed petitioner's appeal on finding no merit in it.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned orders of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority, on the ground that the charges framed against petitioner do not stand proved. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to deposition of Sh. Rajender Singh (PW3) and Sh. Praveen Singh Saini (PW-4) to point out that none of the witnesses, who have deposed against petitioner, has stated about the leaves taken by petitioner and no 'Advisory Memo' was given to petitioner prior to taking such a harsh step of inflicting punishment of "removal from service". It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that duty hours were up to 06:00 p.m. but on oral instructions, petitioner was made to work upto 08:00 p.m. for an indefinite period and that the punishment of "removal from service" is unduly harsh and so, it is submitted that impugned order of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority ought to be set aside and petitioner be reinstated in service.