W.P.(C)--1863/1997. Case: K.L.BERWA Vs. DPCL AND ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--1863/1997 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 15, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: September 22, 2017 Judgment delivered on: December 15, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 1863/1997
K.L.BERWA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Singh, Adv.
versus
DPCL AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R1.
Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sahil Ghei, Adv. R2.
Mr. Gulshan Chawla, Mr. Rishi Kulshrestha and Mr. Madan Mohan, Advs. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
-
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated May 23, 1996 whereby the petitioner was imposed a removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for his employment with the respondent and order dated January 31, 1997 by the petitioner on February 12, 1997 of the Appellate Authority, whereby had rejected the Appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal above.
-
Some of the relevant facts as pleaded by the petitioner are,
joined the erstwhile DESU which was renamed as DVB on February 14, 1980 as Meter Reader. In March, 1990 as averred by the petitioner he internal report stating electricity theft in Devli extension area. A dated August 5, 1994 was served on the petitioner inter alia alleging that while working as Meter Reader during the year 1990-91, he with malafide and with a view to extend benefit to the consumer, did not record the of meter installed against K. No. 173298 registered in the name of Sh. Singh at Premises No. A-141, Devli Extension in the month of May, Further the Connection No. 173298 sanctioned for domestic purposes, being used for INDL/COMML Purposes and the LV mains were unauthorizedly extended to other premises. It was also alleged petitioner did not issue ST-II and ST-VII to his MSR (D) Reporting meter was not read and supply was being misused and extended to premises in violation of order dated May 29, 1982. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer who vide report dated July 6,
found the charge, as proved against the petitioner. Pursuant February 19, 1996, the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the report. The reply to the enquiry report was given by the petitioner on 29, 1996. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry officer imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner impugned order dated May 23, 1996. The petitioner submitted an dated June 17, 1996 which appeal was rejected vide order dated 1997, which was received by the petitioner on February 12, 1997.
-
It was argued by Mr. Manish Singh, learned counsel for the
that the order of removal is an unreasoned order inasmuch as none grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice considered by the disciplinary authority, who simply agreed conclusion of guilt as found by the Enquiry Officer. In this referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N.
v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984 and also G. Vallikumari v. Education Society and Ors. JT 2010 (3) SC 75 to contend that there be application of mind. Similar was the plea of Mr. Singh that grounds raised in the Appeal have not been adverted to by the Appellate Authority.
regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Directorate (Marketing) Indian Oil Corporation Lt. and Anr. V.
Kumar JT 2006 Vol. (7) SC 31 . He also relied upon the judgment Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Ors. V. Krishna Tiwari, Civil Appeal No. 7600/2013 decided on January 2, 2017. That apart it is his case that, obligation of the Appellate Authority to record reasons out from Section 17 of the Delhi Electric Undertaking DMC Rules and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. That apart, it was the submission Singh that in the present case, the determination of penalty was done before calling for reply and consideration of the representation made petitioner in response to the show cause notice which according to him is clear from the show-cause notice itself. In other words, it was his submission the order passed by the disciplinary authority was with a pre-determined mind. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Electricity Board Ltd. v. Mahesh Dahiya reported as 2017 2 SCC also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yoginath D.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in JT 1990 Vol. VI SC 62.
the conduct of departmental enquiry, his submission was that the witness namely Gyan Dev Vats was not produced in the enquiry.
to him, it was the case of the petitioner that no meter-sheet was inserted in the meter-reading book to enable him to record the meter reading concerned consumer and in that regard, the respondents had relied statement given by Gyan Dev Vats to the Vigilance Department in 1992. According to him, concedingly Gyan Dev Vats was not even witness. He stated, the petitioner did object to the non-appearance of witness, who was the custodian of all the meter-books, billing ledger, register etc. According to him, the findings of the Enquiry Officer perverse. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Hardwari Lal v. State of UP and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 277 apart it was his submission that the proceedings shall be hit by latches inasmuch as the subject matter of the charge was of the year whereas the chargesheet was issued in the year 1995, i.e., after expiry period of 5 years because of which the petitioner could not remember sequence of events which transpired at the relevant point of time.
regard, he would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of India v. Hari Singh, W.P.(C) 4245/2013 decided on September 23, 2013. He also pleaded discrimination inasmuch one G.C. Sharma who was also reader and against whom identical charges of non-reporting the electricity supply were framed was imposed a penalty of withholding annual increments without cumulative effect. He also challenged Inspection Report to contend that the meter installed at Premises Village-Devli Extension was not inspected by the authorities at all meter number in the inspection report and the meter book is not the same
further the connection number could not be ascertained by the authorities. In such circumstances, the very foundation of the charge petitioner has not recorded the reading of the meter installed Connection No. 173298 does not hold ground as it is not proved inspecting authorities had really done inspection of the meter installed against Connection No. 173298. He prays for the reliefs as sought in the petition.
-
On the other hand, Mr. Gulshan Chawla, learned counsel appearing the respondent no.3 BSES would submit that the petitioner who was in the office of AFO (D) NHP during the year 1991 with malafide and with a view to extend undue benefit to the consumer did not reading of the meter installed against K.No. 173298 registered in the Balbir Singh, Premises No. A-141, Devli Extension on his reading the month of May, 1990. He has read the charge as framed petitioner. According to him, on a Joint Inspection conducted on February 12, 1992, it was revealed that a large scale theft of electricity was being connivance with the local DESU Staff in the unauthorized colonies Sangam Vihar and Devli Extension by tapping the cables of the mains and extending the same in the whole area with the support of etc. According to him, the charge against the petitioner is of very nature and the charges having been proved by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the penalty of removal from service as it is a case of loss of confidence. So he would justify the appellate whereby the order of the disciplinary authority was upheld. He has through the enquiry report to contend, there is sufficient evidence noted in the enquiry report to prove the charge. He would justify the
placed by the Enquiry Officer on the representation dated July 29,
Gyan Dev Vats to prove the charge against the petitioner. That apart submission that the scope of judicial review is very limited and this would not like to interfere when there is sufficient evidence on record. Chawla would rely upon the following judgments in support of his contention:
-
National Housing Bank v. B.C.S Ballga 2006 III AD (Delhi)
-
State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SSC
-
High Court of Judicate at Bombay v. Udan Singh and Ors.
5 SSC
-
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra AIR 1999 SC 5. Director General R.P.F. and Ors. V. Ch. Sai Babu 2003 (1) SCR 6. Bank of India & Anr. v. Degala Suryanarayana AIR 1999 SC 7. K.V. Kulkarni v. Bank of India and Ors. 2015...
To continue reading
Request your trial