D K SINGH Vs. U P JAL NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.P.Srivastava and Sri I.P.Singh for the U.P. Jal Nigam. During the course of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned counsel for the Jal Nigam argued about the maintainability of the claim petition itself which is pending before the Tribunal. We have proceeded to consider the aforesaid question while considering the validity of the impugned order, by means of which the prayer for issuing a direction be issued to the Jal Nigam to consider and decide the representation, has been refused. The petitioner is being subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He has been issued a charge sheet and has submitted reply and thereafter the enquiry officer has submitted his report and a show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has filed a claim petition challenging the show cause notice.

(2.) The apprehension of the petitioner, as has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite the representation being made by the petitioner, the Jal Nigam would not consider the representation and would pass adverse orders. It was on this alleged cause of action that the claim petition has been filed and the interim relief is being asked for.

(3.) In response, learned counsel for the Jal Nigam has stated that there is a complete procedure, prescribed for holding the disciplinary proceedings in respect of an officer/employee of the Jal Nigam, and the reply/representation against the show cause notice would be considered at the appropriate time before passing the final order. He says that the apprehension of the petitioner that the reply to the show cause notice would not be considered and the final order would be passed is imaginary and a device to keep the claim petition pending, which itself is not maintainable at the intermediary stage of enquiry nor maintainable against the show cause notice and consequently the refusal on the part of the Tribunal to grant interim relief can also not be faulted with.