GURMUKH SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 998, 4738, 4739 and 5454 of 1986 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. Reference to the facts and documents unless otherwise specifically mentioned shall, however, be made from C.W.P. No. 998 of 1986.

(2.) SHRI Gurmukh Singh Petitioner in C.W.P. No. 998 of 1986 was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Haryana State Electricity Board - -Respondent. Sarvshri Ran Singh, T. S. Rana and Anil Kumar Petitioners in C.W.P. Nos. 4738, 4739 and 5454 of 1986 respectively were working as Junior Engineers under him in the employment of the Respondent. Shri Gurmukh Singh Petitioner joined service as a Lineman Grade I in the year 1956. Climbing the ladder of promotion he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 15th December, 1978 and had been working as such in the service of the Respondent till the impugned order dated 24th February, 1985 Annexure P/l was passed removing him from service. It is this order which the Petitioner has impugned. Similar orders removing the Petitioners in the connected writ petitions were passed by Respondent No. 1 on the same date. In the year 1974, the Respondent undertook the construction of Pinjore - -Panchkula transmission line. The line consisted of 80 towers. The Petitioner was incharge of l/4th of the work. The remaining was entrusted to the Sub -Divisional Officers, Yamunanagar, Panipat and Ambala. The Petitioners in the connected writ petitions were the Junior Engineers on this work. The Petitioner was placed under suspension on 30th January, 1985 but no charge sheet was served on him. The procedure for holding a departmental enquiry and ultimate punishment on the employees of the Respondent is laid down in the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1980 (for short 'the Regulations'). Regulations 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 provide for service of a chargesheet on the delinquent official his reply to the same, appointment of an Enquiry Officer, holding of enquiry, service of second show cause notice and ultimate punishment. Regulation 13 lays down thus:

(3.) THE Respondent without holding an enquiry or affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to defend himself against the charges levelled was removed from service through the impugned order Annexure P/1. The enquiry was dispensed with in the purported exercise of power under Clause (ii) of Regulation 13. The Petitioner has impugned the order Annexure P/1 mainly on the ground that the enquiry had been dispensed with by the Respondent on grounds which are altogether extraneous and irrelevant and not germane to Clause (ii) of Regulation 13.