MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. DELHI POWER SUPPLY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mahendra Singh seeks, by means of this writ petition, quashing of order, dated 15th June, 2002, whereby, consequent on disciplinary proceedings held against him, the Additional General Manager (hereinafter referred to as "AGM") of the Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter referred to as "DVB") - the predecessor-Corporation to the present respondent - dismissed him from service. The petitioner appealed, on 3rd July, 2002, to the Member (Tech-I) of the DVB, against the impugned punishment order and, having waited, fruitlessly, for some time, for the appeal to be decided, moved this Court by means of the present writ petition.

(2.) The proceedings against the petitioner - who, at the time, was working as Inspector in the DVB - may be said, legitimately, to have commenced with the issuance of Memorandum, dated 7th July, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the charge-sheet"), by the AGM, proposing holding of an enquiry, against him, under Regulation 7 of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DMC) Service (C & A) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"), and giving him an opportunity to show cause thereagainst. The charge, against the petitioner, was of having accepted a bribe, of Rs. 10, 000/-, from Mr. Sushil Bansal, threatening him, in the alternative, with disconnection of his electricity supply and issuance of inflated bills regarding electricity consumption by him for earlier periods, as the electricity meter installed at Mr. Bansal's premises was defective. It was alleged that the petitioner had directed Mr. Bansal to pay the demanded amount of Rs. 10, 000/- by the afternoon of 24th February, 1995, and to bring, with him, a copy of his last paid Bill, or security deposit receipt, in respect of the electric meter installed at his workshop, so that it could be replaced. Mr. Bansal, thereupon, as per the charge-sheet, lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which registered a case and set up a trap, to catch the petitioner redhanded.

(3.) Simultaneously, RC No 16 (A)/95-DLI was registered, against the petitioner, by the CBI, under Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act"). A closure report was filed, by the CBI, in the said proceedings, to the effect that the evidence available was insufficient to warrant proceeding against the petitioner criminally under the PC Act. However, the said closure report was rejected, by the learned Special Judge (CBI), vide order dated 18th May, 1996, opining that the commission of offence, by the petitioner, under the aforementioned provisions of the PC Act stood prima facie established.