JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned Order No. DGM (HR)/ 2015-16/204A dated 29.02.2016 passed by the respondents whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Order No. SR. MGR(HR)/2015-16/48 dated 08.06.2015 passed by the disciplinary authority was dismissed.

2. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has also challenged the impugned show cause notices dated 19.09.2014, 17.11.2014, 24.04.2015 and 13.05.2015 issued by respondent no.1 to the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Meter Reader in the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (“DESU”) on 08.10.1974 (Employee No. 17068). The petitioner received a Memo dated 24.10.1990 whereby an alleged charge of misconduct was levelled against him, which contained in the Statement of Article of Charge, is reproduced as under:-

“Shri D.P. Sharma, while functioning as a Meter Reader, is alleged to be guilty of charge of misconduct as he with ulterior motive and to favour the consumer of K.No. S-115996, SA-11598 did not issue the Statement III and Statement II in the month of June 1980 and October 1982 as detailed in the State of imputations of misconduct.”

4. Further case of the petitioner is that during the course of inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer Shri D. Dass Gupta wrote a letter to Shri U.S. Tripathi, Vigilance Officer (G), RPH thereby bringing to the notice of said U.S. Tripathi that in the case of the petitioner, it had already been stated that the misconduct was alleged to have been committed in the years 1980-82 whereas the departmental proceedings were initiated in the year 1995 i.e. almost 13 years later. It was also stated that one of the listed documents pertaining to year 1956 had not yet been made available before the inquiry and all the additional documents which had been requested by the petitioner in his application dated 24.07.1995 had not been obtained or produced before the inquiry. One of the listed witnesses Shri R.S. Soni, AFO (retired long ago) and the other PW Shri S.C. Sharma, Senior Clerk (Const. East)-II of XEO (CE)-II, Karkardooma, have not yet been contacted to appear before the inquiry officer inspite of several notices issued to them. In these circumstances, it was requested, thereby, to consider amongst others, to withdraw the proceedings of inquiry against the petitioner.

5. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner vide letter dated 07.06.1996, followed by another letter dated 01.04.1998 to the Addl. General Manager (A) of the respondents, made a representation thereby raising objection to the holding of departmental inquiry after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 13 years. In the said representations, the petitioner requested the respondents to drop/close the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner received a memo dated 28.05.1998 along with a copy of the Inquiry Report dated December 1997. The Inquiry Officer, in its Inquiry Report, exonerated the petitioner from the alleged charges/misconduct and held that the alleged charge of misconduct was not proved against the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority in its memo dated 28.05.1998 did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge against the petitioner was fully proved vide its memo dated 28.05.1998 proposed to impose penalty of reduction by 3 stages in his time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with further stipulation that he will not earn any increments of pay. The petitioner by way of the said memo dated 28.05.1998 was called upon to show cause as to why the said penalty be not imposed upon him. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 26.06.1998 to the Additional General Manager (A) of the respondents explaining therein, in detail, the reason as to why the alleged charges were not at all proved against him and he ought to have been exonerated in the matter of al