O.P. KHARAB Vs. HVPN LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioner who is a retiree is that the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure P-1), the order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P-3) imposing a ten per cent cut upon his pension and the letter dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure P-4) appointing an Enquiry Officer for holding regular departmental enquiry be quashed. It is appropriate to mention that learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P-3) imposing a cut of 10 per cent on the pension of the petitioner was passed without holding enquiry and the same has been withdrawn on 3.8.2005 without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to hold enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, the legality of orders dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure P-4) survive for our consideration.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Draftsman in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board which was later on separated in various Nigams. The petitioner was allocated to HVPN. He retired on 30.6.1997 from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from the office of respondent No. 2 on attaining the age of superannuation. After more than six years of his retirement, the Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 2 issued him a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 read with Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Regulation, 1990. In the summary of charges the following acts of omission and commission are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner :

(3.) That you did not fill up the concrete control register of TL Nos. 98 to 107 properly and left in blank.