$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 187/2025, CM APPLs. 14285/2025 & 14286/2025 EDCIL INDIA LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Ms. Aashnaa Bhatia, Mr. Abhinav Pandey and Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Advs.

versus G L SAGAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. K. Prasad, Ms. Meenu Singh and Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 10.03.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent applicable to this Court challenges judgment dated 31 January 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) 10023/2016, [G. L. Sagar v EDCIL (India) Ltd]

2. The services of the respondent, who was working as General Manager (Project Executive) with EDCIL (India), was terminated by order dated 1 April 2003. He challenged the said termination before this Court by way of CWP 3009/2003. While the writ petition was Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:ALJIPTA 187/2025 Page 1 of 11

pending, the appellant, vide order dated 4 February 2004, withdrew the termination order dated 1 April 2003 and permitted the respondent to join duty on 6 February 2004. In the circumstances, CWP 3009/2003 was disposed of as infructuous on 25 February 2004. This Court also directed that the respondent be paid his wages for the period 1 April 2003 to 6 February 2004 as per applicable Rules.

3. The appellant again issued a charge memo to the respondent on 9 April 2004 which was challenged by the respondent before this Court by way of WP (C) 6755/2004. By order dated 12 January 2005, this Court disposed of the said WP (C) 6755/2004 with the consent of parties, appointing a retried Additional District and Sessions Judge as Inquiry Officer, [“IO”, hereinafter] to inquire into the charges against the respondent.

4. The IO, vide his inquiry report dated 18 June 2005, held that the charges against the respondent were not proved. Accordingly, the respondent was permitted to join duty.

5. The respondent was, thereafter, once again proceeded against, by being placed under suspension by the appellant vide order dated 12 January 2007. This was followed by a charge sheet dated 3 April 2007, issued under Rule 25 of EDCIL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, [Signature Not Veri3 f i“et dhe 2003 Rules”, hereinafter]

6. For the purposes of the present order, it is not necessary to enter into the specifics of the charges against the respondent. Suffice it to

Digitally Signed By:ALJIPTA 187/2025 Page 2 of 11

state that the IO, appointed to inquire into the charges against the respondent, tendered his inquiry report on 6 June 2008, holding Article-I (i), (iii) and (iv) as ‘not proved’ and (ii) as ‘proved’; Article- II as ‘proved’; Article-III as ‘partially proved with the finding that the respondent could not be blamed entirely for the allegations levelled’; Article-IV as ‘not proved’; Article-V ‘there was no evidence that CO called Motwani a murderer’; Article-VI as ‘proved’; Articles-VII and IX ‘while the CO should have attended office on 11 December 2006 and his declaration that Management had resorted to illegal lock out is incorrect, his absence of 01 day only does not deserve to be viewed as a serious misconduct, allegation that CO prevented other employees from entering office is not substantiated’; and Article-VIII as ‘not proved’.

7. A copy of the inquiry report was provided to the respondent, who represented against the inquiry report on 18 July 2008. By order dated 9 September 2008, the Chairman and Managing Director, [“CMD”, hereinafter] of the appellant, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority, [Signature Not Veri5 f i“eDdA”, hereinafter] of the respondent, imposed, on the respondent, the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect, under Rule 25 of the 2003 Rules, with a further direction that the period of suspension from 12 January 2007 to 9 September 2008 would not be treated as having been spent on duty. The re