SUKHI DEVI Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are brief and largely undisputed. Before stating the controversy which arises in this case, let these facts be narrated first:

(2.) One Shri Shital was working in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) (now it is Delhi Vidyut Board), the respondent herein. From 17.7.1989 he started absenting himself from duty. Although it is stated in the petition that he fell seriously ill and could not join his duty for long time, fact remains that he did not intimate the respondent about his illness or submit any leave application. Respondent, therefore, treated him unauthorised absentee. Various communications were sent to him stating that he was unauthorisedly absent and asking him to resume duties. When he failed to comply with the direction, unauthorised absence was treated as misconduct and charge-sheet dated 13.2.91 was issued on the ground that petitioner was remaining on wilful absence from 17.7.89 onwards. Charge-sheet was sent to him at his last known residential address, which was received by him on 12.3.91. However, he did not submit any reply/communication. In the circumstances, respondent decided to proceed against him under major penalty proceedings and notices were sent to him in this regard. However, the same were returned by the postal authority with the remarks "IS NAM KA KOI NAHIN HA - WAPIS". Case was referred back by enquiring authority to the disciplinary authority in view of the aforesaid remarks. The disciplinary authority after noticing all these facts passed order dated 17.3.92 stating that it was not reasonably practicable give Sh. Shital further opportunity to show cause and exercing the power conferred upon him vide clause (b) of Proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 95 of DMC Act 1957 read with Regulation 10 (ii) of DESU (DMC) Service (C&A) Regulations 1976, he dispensed with the requirement of holding departmental enquiry against the charged employee and issuing him a further show cause notice. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that petitioner Shri Shital was not a fit person to be retained in the employment of DESU and as such major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner with immediate effect vide said order dated 17.3.92. This order was sent to the petitioner at his native address in UP as well as Delhi address given by him. This is how services of Shri Shital were terminated in the year 1992. Even after this termination Shri Shital did not react. However, unfortunately Shri Shital Died on 21.9.95. After his death widow and son of Shri Shital (who are petitioners in the present writ petition) approached the respondent for getting financial help and job on compassionate grounds some time in the year 1996. On 2.4.1996 letter was written by the respondent to petitioner No. 1 (widow) requiring her to sent certain documents mentioned in the said letter to enable the respondent to take further action. On her request to provide employment on compassionate basis to his son, application dated 12.4.96 for compassionate appointment was submitted as per requirement contained in respondent letter dated 2.4.96. As no reply was received, another letter dated 13.5.98 was sent, which was followed by reminder letter dated 28.5.98. As no action was taken on their request, petitioners filed this writ petition on 9.7.98 in which petitioners have sought two reliefs, namely, (1) quashing of order dated 17.3.92 by which services of Shri Shital were dismissed (2) directing respondents to dispose of application/representation of petitioner No. 2 seeking appointment on compassionate basis.

(3.) It is stated in the writ petition that since Shri Shital was seriously ill, he could not join duty nor could he participate in the enquiry as he was undergoing treatment and due to his prolonged illness he died on 21.9.95. It is also stated that after the petitioner No. 2 submitted his application for compassionate appointment, initially petitioners were asked to fill the form and only few months back petitioner No. 2 was orally informed that his application/representation for compassionate appointment cannot be considered in view of the fact that services of his father were already terminated vide order dated 17.3.92. This order was never served either upon the petitioners or Shital. After hearing about termination, copy of the said order was obtained by petitioner No. 2 from the Office itself. The termination is impugned on the ground that respondents arbitrarily and without holding enquiry and giving opportunity to Shri Shital to explain the charges of his unauthorised absence terminated his services and this order was in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also stated that extreme penalty of dismissal was not justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as due to continue and prolong illness Shri Shital could not join duties. It is further contended that such a termination is bad in law. It cannot be put against the petitioners in denying petitioner No. 2 appointment on compassionate ground and the application of the petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered by the respondents on merits.