RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31 -1 -95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the four writ petitions filed by the respondent petitioners -and quashed and set -aside the orders of punishment passed by the appellant Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board') against the respondent -petitioners. The learned Single Judge further directed the appellant R.S.E.B. to reinstate the respondent -petitioner Iqbal Singh with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge, while setting -aside the orders of punishment imposed upon the three. Assistant Engineers (respondent -petitioners) regarding disentitlement of promotion for three years, also, directed the Board to provide them all consequential benefits such as proper fitment in the pay scale of the post on which they were working.

(2.) RESPONDENT Iqbal Singh was working as the Executive Engineer (O&M;), R.S.E.B., Hanumangarh, at the relevant time while respondents P.K. Gupta, R.S. Sara, P.R. Karwasra and D.L. Chawla were working as the Assistant Engineers under him. The Enquiry under Regulation -7 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (for short, 'the Regulation, 1962') was proposed to be held against Iqbal Singh, P.K. Gupta, R.S. Sara, P.R. Karwasra and D.L. Chawla. The Statement of Allegations were served upon them. They denied the charges and thereafter Shri P.K.B.K. Kurup, I.A.S. (Retd.) was appointed as the Enqulry Officer to hold a regular enquiry against Iqbal Singh, the Executive Engineer, and Sarvashri P.K. Gupta, R.S. Sara, P.R. Karwasra and D.L. Chawla.

(3.) ALL the petitioner -respondents, aggrieved with the orders imposing penalty upon them passed by the Disciplinary Authority, challenged these orders in these writ petitions before the High Court. The writ petitions, filed by the petitioner - respondents were allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 31 -1 -95. It is against this judgment that the appellant R.S.E.B. has preferred these four appeals.