R K BHATIA Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of removal by the first respondent. The facts culminating in the writ petition could be narrated thus : Till 1989, the petitioner was working under the first respondent Board and a place called "Trilok Puri" was within his jurisdiction with reference to checking of meters. On the 24th of January, 1989, the petitioner inspected the premises of one Hari Shankar in respect of Meter No. K-127602 - 127588/DL installed at premises No. 13/216, Trilok Puri, Delhi. The petitioner did not find any misuse. On the 8th of June, 1990, there was a joint inspection conducted by the Vigilance Department and it was found that there was misuse by the owner. On the basis of this, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer gave his report taking a view that the charge levelled against the petitioner was only partially proved and what was proved was only the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice asking the petitioner to explain why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner gave his explanation. On the 8th of July, 1997, the order of dismissal was passed.

(2.) . The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, submitted that there was no evidence against the petitioner. He submitted that the meter concerned was also inspected by other meter readers subsequently on 06.05.1989, 30.09.1989 and 13.03.1990 and they had not found any misuse by the owner; on the 19th of June, 1990, there was an inspection by a meter reader and no misuse was found and the details of the reading are given in Annexure 'A' to the writ petition and when it is so, the inspection report by the Vigilance Department would not represent the correct position. According to the learned senior counset for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, Annexure 'A' is not disputed by the first respondent.

(3.) . The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, further submitted that at the relevant time, namely, in 1990, Trilok Puri area was not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner and he had to do work in the area called "Patpar Ganj", and, therefore, whatever be the result of the joint inspection report of the Vigilance Department, it cannot be put against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, also submitted that no action had been taken against the owner on the ground of misuse/misuser, and there was no finding against the petitioner that he had been indulgent to the owner and the inquiry officer had stated that the petitioner had been negligent and that too without any basis. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, submitted that he the second respondent, the Additional General Manager(Admn.) had no power to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and, therefore, the order of dismissal is void in law.