Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
HARVEER SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
DELHI POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. THRU CHAIRMAN - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3058 OF 2001
Decided On : 08-11-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjiv K. Jha and Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar and Mr. Vikas Mehta.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for comprehensive analysis and reasons in the findings of a disciplinary inquiry, and the need for the Appellate Authority to reveal application of mind in its order.
Headnote:
PENSION - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CCS (PENSION) RULES - Regulations 10 of DESU (DMC) Service Regulations, 1973 - [ARTICLE I, ARTICLE II, ARTICLE III] - The court considered the challenge to the penalty imposed on the petitioner and found that the Inquiry Officer's findings lacked comprehensive analysis and reasons, and the Appellate Authority's order did not reveal application of mind. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Cash Clerk, was charged with various misconducts related to his duties in 1990. After a disciplinary inquiry, a penalty of 30% cut in pension per month permanently was imposed on the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Inquiry Officer's findings lacked comprehensive analysis and reasons, and the Appellate Authority's order did not reveal application of mind. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the imposition of penalty on the petitioner based on the findings of the disciplinary inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Inquiry Officer's findings lacked comprehensive analysis and reasons, and the Appellate Authority's order did not reveal application of mind, thus warranting a remand for fresh consideration.
Final Decision: The appellate order imposing the penalty was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
“It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(a) quash the order No. VC 49/91-Vig/DCP/AVO-II/10 dated 15th Feb 2001 passed by Additional General Manager (A) Delhi Vidyut Board.
(b) direct the Delhi Vidyut Board to consider the petitioner to be on duty for all purposes during the suspension period.
(c) direct the Delhi Vidyut Board to pay the Petitioner the interest of 18% p.a. on the Gratuity amount i.e. Rs.1,69,000/- from 31.12.1996 till the date of actual payment;
(d) direct Delhi Vidyut Board to pay to the petitioner the difference of monthly suspension allowance @ 25% of his salary from 27.6.1993 to 16.12.1994 together with interest @ 18% from inception until payment.
(e) direct Delhi Vidyut Board to give the benefits of V Pay Commission to the Petitioner and accordingly direct the Delhi Vidyut Board to pay to the Petitioner the Suspension allowance @ 75% of his enhanced salary as per the recommendation of V Pay Commission from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996 together with interest @ 18% p.a.
(f) pass such other further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”
2. From the above, it is noted that the challenge is primarily to order dated February 15, 2001 whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld a penalty of 30% cut in pension per month permanently.
3. Some of the relevant facts are, in the year 1990 the petitioner was working as Senior Cash Clerk in DESU. On May 21, 1990, a complaint was lodged by one Ram Chander Goel against the petitioner alleging in the complaint that his wife had come to deposit certain electricity bills on April 12, 1990. The petitioner received Rs.704/- in respect of certain regular electricity bills and advance electricity bills, issued receipt in respect of advance electricity bills and pocketed Rs.466/- pertaining to the regular electricity bills. On April 08, 1992 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in respect of the allegations, wherein three Articles of Charge were framed against him. On April 28, 1992, the petitioner submitted an application asking for the help of one K.L. Sharma for assisting him in carrying out the inspection of records. The said request was rejected. On March 01, 1993, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet and denied all the charges. On March 26, 1993, the petitioner was placed under suspension. It may be noted that in the charge sheet, the respondent sought to prove the charges by way of twenty three documents and seven witnesses. Inquiry Officer was appointed, who held inquiry and proved the charges against the petitioner. It is also noted that during the pendency of inquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation.
4. On September 11, 1998, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing a penalty of 30% cut in pension per month permanently under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules read with Regulation 10 of DESU (DMC) Service Regulations, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations’).On October 21, 1998, the petitioner submitted a representation against the penalty proposed. On December 31, 1998, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order imposing the penalty of 30% cut in pension per month permanently in exercise of its power conferred under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with Regulation 10 of the Regulations. On January 28, 1999/February 4, 1999, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated December 31, 1998, preferred an appeal against the penalty imposed on him. In the year 2000, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 7673/2000, which was disposed of directing, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days fro
