HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that while posted at Kanina, a criminal case was registered against him under Section 409 IPC. Respondent-plaintiff was accordingly put under suspension and during the pendency of this, XEN was detailed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter. Said XEN submitted a report that the respondent-plaintiff has deposited the money and he be reinstated. The Board terminated the services of the respondent-plaintiff on 11.10.1994, which, he challenged through the civil suit, alleging that this order was ante- dated and malafide. He also pleaded that the order was passed without initiating the enquiry as per the law and without recording any evidence. His grievance further is that no charge was proved against him. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff was also acquitted of the criminal charge, referred to above, and accordingly pleaded that order of his termination was null & void.

(2.) In response to notice issued, written statement was filed. It is pleaded that while being posted as L.D.C.(C), the respondent- plaintiff did not maintain the cash book correctly and misappropriated the property of the defendant. As per the allegations, he miscalculated the total from 24.11.1982 to 24.3.1983 to the tune of Rs.4530/-, from 13.4.1983 to 14.2.1984 to the tune of Rs.3494-65. The allegation of taking some amount, like Rs.877-95 and Rs.377-95 on different dates is also made. It is stated that the respondent- plaintiff was charge sheeted and no satisfactory reply was filed. Show cause notice for termination was accordingly issued. Reliance is placed on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, who found the respondent-plaintiff guilty. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer had proposed the penalty, which was beyond his jurisdiction. It is also stated that the respondent-plaintiff had admitted his guilt in an affidavit and so there was no requirement or need to hold an enquiry and accordingly the order of termination passed in respect of the respondent was stated to be as per the rules and regulations. On the basis of the pleadings, the suit was tried. It was argued before the trial court that show cause notice dated 18.9.1985 was issued without receipt of any reply to the charge sheet and without conducting any enquiry. This was stated to be in violation of Regulation (5) of Haryana State Electricity Board Punishment & Appeal Regulation, 1980 (for short "the Regulation"). It is also noticed that before issuing termination order, neither the respondent-plaintiff was summoned nor enquiry report was given to him. By making reference to the various provisions of the Regulation, the trial court declared the termination order to be null & void, holding the respondent-plaintiff to be entitled to consequential benefits. The appeal filed by the Board was also dismissed on 24.4.2008. The Board is, thus, before this court by way of this Regular Second Appeal.

(3.) The main submission made on behalf of the Board is that the courts below had failed to appreciate that the enquiry was not required to be held while directing termination of the respondent- plaintiff as it was a case of admission of guilt by him. Counsel pleads that in such eventuality, there was no necessity to hold an enquiry. He has referred to the relevant regulation in support of his plea. No doubt, Regulation 8 does provide that where the person pleads guilty to any articles of charge, the inquiring officer shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signatures of the employee thereon. Regulation 9 further makes a provision that inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the employee pleads guilty. The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, however, joins serious issue in regard to the applicability of these provisions. As per the counsel, the affidavit, which is taken into consideration to say that the respondent had pleaded guilty would neither disclose a plea of guilty as is being construed nor can it be taken so. The counsel would further contend that the reading of the affidavit would clearly show that it cannot be taken as an admission of guilt as is being made out. The whole reliance by the appellants is on the affidavit allegedly given by the respondent-plaintiff, which was exhibited on record as Exh.DW7/D. Copy of the same in vernacular is perused by me. No doubt, the respondent-plaintiff had deposited some amount, as is disclosed in the affidavit, but while talking about this case, he categorically deposed in para 2 of the affidavit as under:- "That he had earlier also agreed that while accepting the cash, he happened to unintentionally commit mistake because of paucity of time".