D.K. Puri vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1993 Latest Caselaw 627 Del

JUDGMENT

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

(1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer that order dated 9th June, 1993 passed by respondent No. 3 be quashed. He has further prayed that the Central Vigilance Commission has no jurisdiction to give any opinion or finding as requested by respondent No. 3 in the order dated 9th June, 1993. Dr. D.K.Puri vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anothers

(2) The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. In the chargesheet against the petitioner Dr. D. K. puri it is mentioned: "ARTICLEOF Charge While functioning as XEN(D)SRD during the period 25-8-81 to 5-6-83 the said Sh. D. K. Puri with an ulterior motive to give undue favor to the consumer : (a) did not get the supply disconnected and meters Along with meter boards removed; and (b) did not lodge report with the Police Authorities under S. 44 of the Indian Electricity Actc. turn the illegal shifting of service line and shifting of meter with boards from the old residential building to the newly constructed hotel at 2/16 East Patelnagar, New Delhi by the consumer, Sardar Attar Singh,in respect of domestic lighting connection No. 7ZK-340641, K262068, K261362, 7ZK 646713 And K-274051."

Along with the petitioner other officers denied the charges. Therefore, the cases were referred for holding regular departmental enquiry for which Mrs. Vijaya Laxami Cd, C.V,C was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against them. C.V.C. advised imposition of major penalty on the petitioner.

(3) Against the proposed penalty of removal from service the petitioner filed writ petition in this Court and this Court vide dated 29th May, 1992 quashed initiation of disciplinary enquiry and other action of appointing enquiry officer and presenting officer and all subsequent steps taken by the Desu in pursuance to the memo of charge sheet on the ground that statutory authority provided no regulation itself in exercise of power of issuing article of charge Sheet and also appointed enquiry officer and the presenting officer.

(4) In this order it is mentioned that the court has quashed the proceedings against the petitioner on technical ground. Advice of legal department was obtained. The Legal Department opined that Departmental proceedings against the petitioner could be initiated denovo and fresh chargesheet could be issued with certain modifica1 tion and accordingly a draft chargesheet was prepared for the consideration and approval of the disciplinary authority. However before submitting the case to the disciplinary authority comments of the Legal Department regarding application under Section 44 of the Indian electricity Act in this case were called for. The Legal Department opined that Section 44 is applicable for interference with meters or licenses's works. The illegal shifting of service line with meter board which are licensee's works, definitely comes under Section 44 and whose over interferes with the same is liable to be punished under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. Municipal Corporation of Delhi exercising the powers of the Delhi Electric Supply Committee being competent authority in this case was requested to consider that case and pass appropriate orders before the matter could be placed before the Central Vigilance Commission for its advice concurrence. Accordingly the case was submitted for orders.

(5) In this petition petitioner has prayed that the order dated 9-6-93 be quashed and it may be held that the Cvc has no jurisdiction to give any opinion or finding or reconsideration as requested by respondent No. 3 in its order dated 9th June, 1993. In pursuance of Court notice reply has been filed on behalf of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking In the reply, a threshold objection has been taken that the writ petition entirely misconceived and without any basis. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging entirely routine administrative decisions of the Desu to consult CVC.

(6) In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that impugned action of the respondent Desu to consult the Cvc can possibly cause no prejudice to the petitioner and consequently the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to b" dismissed.

(7) It is submitted in earlier proceedings before this Court in Cw 1783/89 this Court quashed the chargesheet on the ground that the Departmental proceeding had not been initiated by the competent authority. This Court never went into the merits of the charges. Subsequently AGM(T) Desu was oa an interpretation of Indian Electricity Act was of the opinion that no action is attracted to be taken against the petitioner. The DeSU on 9th June,l993 thought it appropriate obtain advice from respondent No. 4 CVC. Respondent No. 4 is not in any way trying to initiate any. disciplinary or other action against the petitioner. Hence no prejudice is possibly caused to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot have any grievance against mere consultation with the CVC.

(8) It is further submitted in the reply that the Cvc was set up by the Govt. of India on the recommendations of the Committee on I Prevention of Corruption under the Ministry of Home Affairs on 11-2-1964. Under the terms of the Ministry of Home Affails, the Commission has jurisdiction and powers in respect of matters to which the executive powers of the Union extends. It can undertake or have in enquiry made into any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in corrupt manner or into any complaint that a public servant had exercised or refrained from exercising his powers with an improper or corrupt motive etc. It is further submitted that jurisdiction of the Cvc extends to all employees of the Government and Central Public undetakings.

(9) In the reply it is further mentioned that it has been decided by the Commission that the Commission will for the present advise on cases pertaining to gazetted officers and officers of public enterprises, local bodies, autonomous bodies and similar bodies receiving grant from the Central Govt. who are drawing pay in the pay scale whose minimum pay is not less than Rs. 2825 per month. Therefore, according to the respondent, the Commission has complete jurisdiction over the employees of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in view of the said resolution of the Ministry of Home Affaairs.

(10) In the reply, it has been further stated that the Central Vigilance Commission is an advisory body. The order dated 9th June, 1993 does not in anyway prejudice the petitioner or affect his right in any manner.

(11) Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Banerjee vs. West Bengal in Civil Appeal No. 1277 of 1975 decided on 26th March, 1980. In the said case the Supreme Court has opined that if the disciplinary authority has arrived at its own decision on the material available, then the decision cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality merely because the disciplinary authority consulted the Vigilance Commissioner and obtained his views on the very same material. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the disciplinary authority in the instant case is well within its right to consult respondent No. 4 Central Vigilance Commission. He further submitted that mere consultation with the C.V.C. cannot prejudice the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

(12) The petitioner has approached this Court on issuance of the letter dated 9th June. 1993 by the Additional General Manager (Administration) for General Manager (E). In this letter it is mentioned that since the court has quashed the proceedings against the petitioner on technical ground, advice of legal department was obtained. The legal department opined that Departmental proceedings against the petitioner could be initiated denovo and fresh chargesheet could be issued with certain modification and accordingly a draft chargesheet was prepared for consideration and approval of the disciplinary authority. However, before submitting the case to the disciplinary authority comments from the Legal Department regarding application under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act in this case were called. The Legal Department opined that Section 44 is applicable for interference with meters or licensee's works. The illegal shifting of service line with meter by board which are licensee's works, definitely comes under Section 44 and whosoever interferes with the lS liable to be punished under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi exercising the powers of the Delhi Electric Supply Committee, being competent authority in this case, was requested to consider the case and pass appropriate orders, before the matter could be placed before the Central Vigilance Commission for its advice/concurrence.

(13) The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed that order dated 9th June 1993 be quashed because the Central Vigilance Commission has no jurisdiction to give any opinion or finding as requested by respondent no. 3 in the order dated 9th Jume, 1993.

(14) We have heard learned counsel for the parties in our considered view merely seeking advice from the Commission before proceeding in the matter cannot render the order illegal or without jurisdiction particulary in view of the judgment of Sunil Kumar Bannerjee (Supra).

(15) The writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.