U G DALSANIA Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service at annexure-D and also the orders dismissing his First and Second Appeals at annexures-F and I respectively.

(2.) The say of the respondent - Board is that the petitioner was found to have committed aforesaid acts after preliminary enquiry and hence it was decided to proceed against him departmentally. Enquiry was set up. In the course of proceedings he was supplied with all the necessary material alongwith the statement of allegations to enable him to effectively defend his interest at the hearing. The actual hearing of the proceedings commenced on 22nd March, 1996. At the hearing several witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent - Board. One of them was Mr. B. H. Jani - Deputy Engineer. It appears that in the preliminary enquiry, his statement was not recorded on 4th January, 1996 when the statements of other officers were recorded. However, he had given an explanation to the effect that since he had fallen sick, he was not available for giving statement. It also appears that copies which were furnished to the petitioner alongwith the chargesheet were not very legible and, therefore, vide letter dated 4th April, 1996, he had requested for supply of not only legible copies but certain documents which were not made available to him though they were being used against him in the enquiry. They are as under :- (i) Checking sheets to be filled in of all the meters; (ii) legible copies of the proceedings; (iii) instructions given in writing in the form of circular with regard to opening of meters; (iv) legible copies of rojkam etc.

(3.) Mr. Maulin Raval learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Maya Desai learned advocate appearing for the respondents have advanced various submissions. The first submission of Mr. Raval is that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to defend his case effectively. He has submitted that when specific allegation was made against him in the enquiry that Mr. Jani had acted against the interest of the Board only because he was compelled to do so by the petitioner, it was necessary for the Enquiry Officer to give him adequate chance to cross-examine the said witness. He has also submitted that in the instant case, preliminary enquiry was carried out by Mr. P.P. Ajmera, Superintending Engineer, (O & M), who was later on appointed as Enquiry Officer. Such course cannot be permitted as it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. He has also made grievance regarding non-supply of documents to the petitioner.