LAWS(P&H)-2007-1-133

BIPAN TALWAR Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Decided On January 09, 2007
Bipan Talwar Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired from the service of Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") on 31.5.2003. After retirement, the petitioner started providing assistance to the delinquent employees of the respondent -Board, who were facing departmental proceedings. He took up this practice as a whole time vocation and profession. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, he had 20 enquiries pending. He claims that he is earning his livelihood from the profession of assisting the delinquent employees of the respondent -Board. During his service, the petitioner served as a Deputy Secretary (Enquiries) from the year 2000 to 2002 and as a Joint Secretary (Enquiries) from the year 2002 till his retirement on 31.5.2003. He, therefore, claims to have acquired sufficient knowledge and skill regarding departmental disciplinary matters. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Office Order No. 1/DI/M -15 dated 12.7.2006, by which Regulation 8(8) of the PSEB Employees Punishments & Appeal Regulations 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "1971 Regulations") has been amended as under:

(2.) The respondent has filed a written statement. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid Regulation has been amended only to comply with the policy circular No. 14/35/78 -2 PP/11743 dated 28.11.1979 issued by the Punjab Government. The amendment has been approved by the respondent -Board on 9.6.2006. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid Regulation has been amended on a sound criteria to prevent unnecessary delay in the conduct of departmental enquiry. It is specifically pleaded by the respondent that the amendment would go a long way to ensure that no monopoly is created in a few persons for representing the employees in the departmental proceedings. The amendment has been made in public interest. Learned Counsel further brought to the notice of this Court Clause (a) of Sec. 172 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which has authorized the Board to function as the State Transmission Utility and Licensee under Sec. 14 of the 2003 Act. Sec. 172(a) of the Electricity Act 2003 provides that initially, the State Electricity Board constituted under the repealed laws shall be deemed to be State Transmission Utility for a period of one year. This period can be extended by the State Government for another period of one year. The period has been duly extended by the Punjab Government. Learned Counsel further submitted that in any event the proposed amendment is not in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that no employee has an absolute right of representation by somebody else. The right has been granted under the 1971 Regulations. The restriction placed on the number of enquiries to be conducted by a particular person is, in fact, in the interest of the employees. In support of the submission, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that no right of the petitioner has been infringed. In fact each and every submission made by the petitioner has been rejected specifically by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. In the case of Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the short question for determination before the Supreme Court was as follows: