The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 19(ii) of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 in dispensing with the regular Departmental Inquiry due to rampant corruption and organizational hostility.

Sunil Gaur, J.:-

1. Petitioner-Jagwanta was the lineman and remaining three petitioners were Assistant Lineman in Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter referred to as DVB), who have been dismissed from service vide impugned order of 8th March, 2000 while dispensing with the Inquiry by invoking Rule 19 (ii) of CCS CCA Rules, 1965.

2. Impugned order of 8th March, 2000 discloses that petitioners were placed under suspension on 31st January, 2000 as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against them. It is evident from the impugned order that on 31st January, 2000, General Manager of M/s. Himalayan Overseas had appeared on a news channel and had disclosed that a day earlier, he had to pay bribe of Rs. 2,000/- to one of the employees of DVB to get his burnt electric meter replaced. The revelation made on the news channel was that one of the employees of DVB had declared that few electric meters were received, but the demand is for more and electric meter can be installed at the premises of the said General Manager provided Rs. 2,000/- is paid. News reporter purportedly took the said General Manager (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) to the sub-station situated at Delhi Okhla Industrial State where before camera, DVB employees present there openly admitted to taking of bribe and had disclosed that the booty/bribe collected is put in a common pool and is divided amongst the lineman staff and on an average, an employee of DVB pockets the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- per day.

3. To verify this distressing news, vigilance investigation was got conducted by DVB and as per the vigilance report, one Nafe Singh, Assistant Lineman (ALM) of DVB in his statement on 24th January, 2000 before the Vigilance Staff had admitted that he had spoken to a lady news reporter in the morning of 23rd January, 2000 and had admitted that he was aware that his colleagues i.e. petitioners had visited the industrial premises of the said General Manager of 22nd January, 2000 and had struck the deal for replacement of the burnt electric meter on the next day i.e. Sunday for consideration of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. It is also evident from the impugned order that during the vigilance investigation, it had come to the fore that the said General Manager, who had confirmed before the Senior Officer of Vigilance Department of having paid a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- to one of the line staff members for replacement of the burnt electric meter. During vigilance investigation, it stood confirmed that petitioners had replaced the burnt electric meter on 23rd January, 2000 i.e. on Sunday and had also confirmed that there was indeed shortage of the electric meters. Vigilance investigation further revealed that there was rampant and organized corruption amongst the lineman staff, who did not attend to even routine complaints of “No Current” without a consideration.

5. The vigilance investigation concluded that the complaint centre in question was neck deep into corrupt practices. The Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order had concluded that the circumstances of this case in its totality do not make it reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry against petitioners. Finding no likelihood of an impartial inquiry in the prevailing circumstances, the Departmental Inquiry stood dispensed with while noting that the said General Manager of M/s. Himalaya Overseas Limited is not likely to give evidence due to organizational hostility and threat of discriminatory treatment in future.

6. An apprehension was also expressed in the impugned order that there is real danger of the DVB employees getting influenced by misguided loyalty to create labour problem resulting in disruption of public services. It is also noted in the impugned order that petitioners were in the advantageous position of influencing DVB employees in the event of Departmental Inquiry being held. Impugned order takes note of the organized corruption in DVB and concludes that petitioners were not fit to be retained