Compliance with the procedural requirements of the DHBVN Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2006, including addressing charges individually and considering objections, is crucial in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of preliminary inquiry report dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure P-2), charge-sheet dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-3) and inquiry report dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-6) being contrary to the facts and material on record and having issued without considering the submissions made by the petitioner. Further, a prayer is made to quash the show cause notice dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No.2 whereby a major penalty of dismissal from service has been proposed.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that work order Nos.183/TED-253/IPDS/DHBVN/Hisar and 184/TED-253/IPDS/DHBVN/ Hisar, both dated 12.06.2017 were issued by respondent No.1 to M/s Duhan Electrical Works Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Road, Hisar to supply, erect/install and commission plant and equipment for urban electrification works of four towns i.e. Narnaud, Adampur, Ratia and Bhuna falling in the jurisdiction of old Hisar Circle (now bifurcated into Hisar and Fatehabad Circles) under the scheme floated by the Central Government i.e. Integrated Power Development Scheme (in short IPDS). At that relevant point of time, the petitioner herein was working as Executive Engineer, Hansi. On 21.08.2017, the petitioner was telephonically informed that he has been made a member of the Joint Verification Report Committee formed by the Chief Engineer, PD&C, DHBVN, Hisar.

3. During the execution of works, the management came to know that the Contractor has extracted excess payment from the respondent-department against supplies and erections made under the project. Consequently, a fact finding inquiry was got conducted under the supervision of Superintending Engineering (Operation), Hisar (hereinafter referred to as SE 'Op', Hisar) wherein it had been concluded that gross irregularities had been committed by the Contractor, concerned field officers and by the office of Finance Adviser/Planning, Design and Construction, DHBVN, Hisar (in short 'FA/PD&C). Based on the conclusion arrived at in the fact finding inquiry , works orders issued under the IPDS to the Contractor stood cancelled and a charge-sheet dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-3) had been issued against the petitioner and other officials. Upon receipt of charge-sheet, the petitioner duly responded vide his reply dated 31.05.2018. Dissatisfied with the reply submitted, the respondent-department decided to proceed with a regular Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner and other officials and consequently, an inquiry officer was appointed by respondent No.1 as per DHBVN Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 2006. However, before completion of inquiry, the petitioner had again been asked to furnish a detailed reply, which he submitted on 08.02.2019 (Annexure P-5). The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-6), to which the petitioner submitted his objections on 17.09.2019 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P-8) was issued, holding him guilty of charges levelled against him and respondent No.2 had arrived at a conclusion that a major penalty i.e. punishment of dismissal from service should be inflicted upon the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings initiated against him are vitiated. The petitioner has been called to explain as to why a major penalty i.e. punishment of dismissal from service should not be inflicted upon the petitioner, which is not sustainable considering that the preliminary inquiry itself was conducted by respondent no 2, the Nodal officer who was in-charge of verification of the bills as submitted by the Contractor. Respondent No.2, who was himself responsible for execution of the project, appeared as a witness in the fact finding inquiry and was also the complainant in the FIR lodged by the department against the petitioner and other persons, thus, fo