SHRI JASWANT SINGH Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for quashing the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by Member Technical erstwhile Delhi Vidhyut Board whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages with cumulative effect on the petitioner was imposed as well the order dated 20th January, 2005 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Admn.) of the respondent whereby an appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of penalty dated 5th April, 2002 was also dismissed. The main contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid penalty is illegal and in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Yoginath D Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. : AIR 1999 SC 3734.

(2.) IT was contended that in the instant case the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner of the charges which was held against him but the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer gave a notice to the petitioner along with a disagreement note with the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as the show cause notice as to why the punishment reduction of pay by three stages with with cumulative effect for a period of three years should not be imposed on him. It was urged that this composite notice whereby the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority accompanying with the proposed punishment is given, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case titled W.P (C) No. 7339/1999 wherein the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yoginath D Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. : AIR 1999 SC 3734 has been followed and the penalty was set aside on the question of delay and latches. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that although the penalty as imposed on 5th April, 2002 which was upheld on 20th January, 2005 but the review application of the petitioner against the said penalty in terms of the Rule 29 A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 dated February 2008 is still pending.

(3.) MR . Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in response to the advance copy having been served has refuted the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it was urged by the learned Counsel that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of fact in as much as against the dismissal of his appeal on 20th January, 2005, the petitioner had made a representation which was rejected vide order dated 28th August, 2005 on the ground that the case is old and there is no merit in the said representation. A photocopy of the said memo dated 22nd February, 2005 was handed over to him.