Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Brij Mohan - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6902 of 2003, CM Appl. 11994 of 2003, CM Appl. 12652 of 2003, CM Appl. 1625 of 2004, CM Appl. 7267 of 2004 & CM Appl. 1073 of 2007
Decided On : 18-10-2022
WRIT - QUASHING OF ORDERS - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INQUIRY REPORT - FINDINGS - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT - POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - ALTERNATE REMEDY - EXHAUSTION OF STATUTORY REMEDIES - DELHI ELECTRICITY REFORMS ACT, 2000 - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 311 - ARTICLE 95.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a regular employee of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU), was transferred to Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (respondent no. 2) upon the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 coming into force. A complaint was received against the petitioner alleging involvement in a vigilance case. The petitioner was served with a Notice of Suspension and a Memo of Charge and Statement of Imputation. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the case and submitted a report finding the charges against the petitioner to be proved. Based on the report, the respondent no. 3 passed an order of removal from services. The petitioner challenged the impugned orders by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the orders and release of salary from the date of suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned orders were not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The Inquiry Officer considered all the evidence on record and submitted a detailed report. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and passed the impugned order after considering the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice. The court further held that the petitioner had not exhausted all alternative remedies before approaching the court. The petitioner could have challenged the impugned orders by way of an appeal to the appropriate authority under the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000. The court also held that the petitioner's services were governed by the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001, and not by the DESU Regulations. Therefore, the provisions of the DESU Regulations, including the requirement for a Municipal Officer to impose penalties, were not applicable to the petitioner's case.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner had exhausted all alternative remedies before approaching the court? 3. Whether the petitioner's services were governed by the DESU Regulations or the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned orders were not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The Inquiry Officer considered all the evidence on record and submitted a detailed report. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and passed the impugned order after considering the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice. 2. The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted all alternative remedies before approaching the court. The petitioner could have challenged the impugned orders by way of an appeal to the appropriate authority under the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000. 3. The court held that the petitioner's services were governed by the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001, and not by the DESU Regulations. Therefore, the provisions of the DESU Regulations, including the requirement for a Municipal Officer to impose penalties, were not applicable to the petitioner's case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned orders were not passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, that the petitioner had not exhausted all alternative remedies, and that the petitioner's services were governed by the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of appropriate nature thereby quashing the order dated 29th March 2003 and order dated 30th September 2003 passed by the respondents no. 2 and 3, vide which the petitioner was removed from services. He has also sought directions to the respondents to release his salary from 1st April 2003 alongwith benefits of service.
BACKGROUND
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are detailed as follows:
a. The petitioner was a regular employee, appointed with effect from May 1995, to the post of Telephone Operator with the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter "DESU") succeeded by the Delhi Vidyut Board and was thereafter, placed with the respondent no. 2, i.e., Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (earlier North Delhi Power Limited) upon the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 coming into force. The petitioner's appointment letter indicated that his services were governed by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DMC) Service (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter "DESU Regulations") and it is the case on his behalf that even after his transfer to the respondent no. 2, the same terms and conditions were to apply.
b. A complaint by one Ram Padarth dated 10th February 2003 was addressed to the respondent no. 2, its officials and the SHO of PS Rohini, against one S.K. Bansal, Inspector of Delhi Vidyut Board and a private resident of Rohini, namely, Sharan Arora. In the said complaint, it was stated that the concerned Inspector of Delhi Vidyut Board got installed new meters at the houses of residents of Rohini, namely, Raj Bala, Sharan Arora and Harish Chand and received money from the said residents to the tune of Rs. 10,800/-, however, he did not issue any receipt to certain amount paid to him by the residents. The complainant also stated that the offender Sharan Arora entered his house, slapped him, abused him and threatened him to get three blank papers signed. The complainant sought action against the said persons.
c. In pursuance of the said complaint, the petitioner was served with the Notice dated 29th March 2003 whereby his services were suspended on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for the reason for his involvement in a vigilance case.
d. A Memo of Charge and Statement of Imputation was served upon the petitioner on 1st April 2003, by the respondent no. 2 holding disciplinary proceedings against him on the charges that, first, he had liaised for replacement of meters with mala fide intention and ulterior motives and secondly, he had obtained a meter without jurisdiction from S.K. Bansal, Junior Engineer for replacement of stop meter in favour of one Anurag resident of G 8/19, Sector 15, Rohini, which was stolen from another residence, i.e., G-1/52, Sector-15 and thereafter, installed the spare meter for unauthorized use of electricity at residence at G-7/112, Sector-15, Rohini.
e. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the case of the petitioner, who furnished his report dated 6th June 2003 concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his innocence on the charges and held the charges to be proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the report, the respondent no. 3 passed the order dated 30th September 2003 vide which the major penalty of removal from services was imposed upon the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by both the orders dated 29th March 2003 and 30th September 2003 and has moved this Court by way of filing the instant petition.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr. Zahid Hanief, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents imposing major penalty upon the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The major penalty was wrongly imposed upon him and his services were terminated by the resp
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
The court confirmed that disciplinary authorities possess broad discretion in imposing penalties, which cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or in breach of natural justi....
The legal validity of disciplinary actions relies on adherence to natural justice and proper procedure in inquiry; mere allegations of bias or misconduct without substantial evidence are insufficient....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the defence of the delinquent employee and recording reasons in decision-making processes, highlighting the obligation to adhere to principles of....
Punishment of dismissal of service should be awarded for gravest act of misconduct.
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
