Disciplinary punishment imposed without evidence and based on an undisclosed dissenting note, contrary to an enquiry officer's exoneration, violates principles of fair procedure and is legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present regular second appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karnal, whereby civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in his favour, as well as judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby appeal filed by the appellants against judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005 was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings in the civil suit are that respondent was working as Meter Reader in the office of A.E.E., Model Town, Sub-Division, UHBVN, Karnal. He was issued charge-sheet dated 08.07.1998 on the ground that he took wrong reading in four figures of account No.LM-30/450 from January 1996 to May 1996 instead of recording the reading of five figures. Due to this negligence, he caused loss of Rs.1,94,000/- to the Board as reading to be accumulated. It was further alleged that he was required to take reading in five figures instead of four figures. He filed reply to the chargesheet. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed who conducted enquiry and submitted his finding on 30.11.1999. Respondent was given a show cause notice on 08.12.1999. Respondent submitted reply to the same. Thereafter, order of stopping of two annual increments with future effect was passed by the appellants. It was pleaded by the respondent that he had joined duties in O.P. Model Town, Sub-Division, Karnal in January 1996. He remained there upto May 1996. The meter was installed in May 1995 prior to his posting. Initial reading of meter was 21. In May 1996, the reading was 5206. After his transfer, another meter reader Jai Kishan took reading in four figures only. Meter was then removed from the site vide MCO No.53 dated 28.10.1996, but no action was taken against Jai Kishan. It is further pleaded that enquiry officer had held that it was not possible to consume that big amount of electric energy by the domestic consumer. Copy of enquiry was not supplied to him before issuing show cause notice. He requested the appellants number of times to accept his claim but the same was not accepted. Therefore, he filed civil suit challenging the punishment order dated 12.05.2000, whereby, his two annual increments with future effect were stopped. The civil suit filed by him was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal. Thereafter, the appellants filed appeal challenging judgment and decreed 09.03.2005 which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the courts did not appreciate the evidence on record while decreeing the civil suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. She, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends that both the courts have rightly decreed the civil suit filed by the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the whole record of the case with their able assistance.

6. It is admitted fact that respondent was meter reader and according to the allegations, he took wrong reading of meter of account No.LM-30/450. He was required to take reading in five figures but in collusion with the consumer the consumption