Shri Baljeet Singh vs Delhi Vidyut Board And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 756 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Rule.

2. The matter has been heard at great length.

3. The facts of the case are that a Charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner in terms of Memorandum dated 16.5.2000. The imputation of misconduct framed against him, in short, is that in respect of electricity meter of M/s J.S. Kapil and Associates there had been an inordinate delay on his part in 'transmission of relevant particulars to MSR Section which were sent by him on 26.2.1998.' By orders dated 31.7.2000, the Additional General Manager (Administration) imposed on the Petitioner the minor penalty of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The appeal provided in the service rules was availed of but was not accepted by order dated 12.12.2000. That order, however, was cryptic in nature and did not spell out the reasons that weighed in the mind of the Appellate Authority in sustaining the impugned punishment. It is contended by Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that the first order was passed by the Additional General Manager (Administration) which post corresponds to Member (Administration) and therefore, the Appeal was dismissed by a person having the same rank as the officer who passed the original order. Be that as it may, WP (C)7521/2001 was filed by the present Petitioner challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. In terms of Orders dated 12.1.2001, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the appeal should be decided by a speaking/reasoned order. That order has been passed on 14.2.2001 and has been challenged in these proceedings. It reads as follows :

'WHEREAS the disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was vitiated against Shri Baljeet Singh, E.No.2969, Head Clerk vide Memo No.VC-188-190/2000-Vig./SR/219 dated 16.5.2000.

AND WHEREAS the said Shri Baljeet Singh, Head Clerk submitted his defense reply dated 31.5.2000 to the aforesaid Memo dated 16.5.2000. The Disciplinary Authority after careful considering the reply of the said Shri Baljeet Singh and relevant records of the case had imposed upon him a minor penalty of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of tone year without cumulative effect vide Order No.VC-188-190/2000-Vig./SR/677 dated 2.8.2000.

AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the said Order dated 2.8.2000, the said Shri Baljeet Singh, Head Clerk preferred an appeal dated 24.8.2000 to the Appellate Authority.

AND WHEREAS the Appellate Authority after considering the appeal dated 24.8.2000 preferred by the said Shri Baljeet singh, Head Clerk had rejected the same vide Order No.VC-188-190/2000-Vig./SR/VO(G)/1005 dated 12.12.2000.

AND WHEREAS Shri Baljeet Singh aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2000 had chosen to file a writ in the Hon'ble Court vide Civil Writ Petition No.271/2001 on the ground that the above Order dated 12.12.2000 is devoid of any reasons. The Hon'ble Court vide it's decision dated 12.1.2001 has directed to the Respondent to reconsider the appeal of the Petitioner by issue a Speaking Order.

AND WHEREAS the undersigned as the Competent Appellate Authority has carefully gone through the appeal. Shri Baljeet Singh has prayed to set aside the penalty Order dated 12.12.2000 on the following grounds :-

1.The meter particulars of K.No.356501 were not received by Shri Sushil Kumar, Junior Clerk on 10.4.97 and were not put up to the Appellant.

2. He had not forwarded the meter particulars to MSR Section on 26.2.98 as he was deputed to assist the AE (PS) for disposal of the court cases at that time.

3. The Disciplinary Authority while imposing the penalty upon him, has held the charge wrongly proved alleging that the meter particulars were received by the Appellant on 10.4.97 and were forwarded by him on 26.2.98.

4. There is nothing on record to establish that the completion report and meter particulars were ever put up to the Appellant by Shri Sushil Kumar.

AND WHEREAS keeping in view the above contentions of the Appellant, I have gone through the records placed before me and it is found that the meter particulars sent by Zonal Office to the Commercial Section (D) R.K. Puram on 10.4.97 were received by Shri Sushil Kumar, Junior clerk. According to the statement of Shri Sushil Kumar, Junior Clerk recorded by Vigilance Department, the meter particulars of K.No.356501 were handed over by Shri Sushil Kumar to Shri Baljeet Singh has admitted in his statement that he had been working in the Office of XEN (D) RKP from November, 1989 to September, 1998. He has further admitted that Shri Sushil Kumar was, at that time, working under his supervision. Therefore, the Appellant Shri Baljeet Singh, Head Clerk can not shirk his responsibility by merely stating that the particulars of K.No.356501 were never put up to him by the Junior Clerk Shri Sushil Kumar working under his supervision. It is the duty of the senior official to supervise and inspect the work of his subordinates and to guide them, as and when necessary. Even if it is presumed that the meter particulars were not put up to Shri Baljeet Singh for such a long time, it only proves lack of supervision on the part of the Appellant. If he had properly supervised and inspected the work of his subordinate he would have come to know about the pending papers and necessary action could have been taken in time. Therefore, I being the Competent Appellate Authority implicitly observe that the Appellant Shri Baljeet Singh, Head Clerk was responsible for inordinate delay in transmission of the particulars of the meter K.No. 356501 to MSR Section.

NOW, THEREFORE, the appeal preferred by the Appellant Shri Baljeet Singh, Head Clerk is rejected.

(SATISH GATHWAL)

MEMBER (ADMN.)'

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that no Departmental/Disciplinary/Domestic Enquiry had been held and the case has been disposed of only on the basis of the charge-sheet and the reply filed by the Petitioner in response thereto. Although there is a fleeting reference to 'evidence' in para 2 of the counter affidavit, no evidence has been placed by the Respondent on the record. I would, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a formal enquiry had not been held. This transgresses the established mandates of law.

5. Secondly, the impugned decision proceeds on the assumption that the statement of Shri Sunil Kumar, Junior Clerk, to the effect that the meter particulars were handed over by him to the Petitioner on 10.4.1997 is, in fact, correct. The Petitioner has denied this assertion. In his reply to the Charge-sheet, the Petitioner has specifically stated that at the material time he was on leave and/or was working in a different department altogether. Rules of natural justice, if not legal imperatives pertaining to departmental enquiries, makes it essential that before a statement is accepted to be true the person who is likely to be affected by it must be afforded an opportunity of cross-examination. In the present case it is certainly possible that Shri Sushil Kumar (the imputation of misconduct mentions Shri Sunil Kumar, thus showing that the order has been passed in great haste) may have been the delinquent in question in that he failed to bring to the notice either of the Petitioner or any of his senior that he had received particulars pertaining to the meter in question. He would, therefore, in order to save himself from being charge-sheeted, naturally have passed on the blame to some other person. The finding by the Appellate Authority that the Petitioner is trying to `shirk' his responsibility is wholly unsubstantiated.

6. Mr. Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has contended that the Court normally does not reconsider or reappraise the evidence which has been collected in an enquiry and has been acted upon by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. He further submits, wholly contrary to the cannone of law, that it was for the Petitioner to pray that an enquiry should be held.

7. There is another important aspect of the case which vitiates both the orders of the Appellate Authority. As has already been noticed, the Charge-sheet as well as the imputation of the misconduct were issued by the Additional General Manager (Administration) and the original order was passed by this officer. In terms of the Notification dated 24.2.1997 and the transfer scheme spelt out in clause 4 thereof, the Member (Administration) corresponds to the Additional General Manager (Administration). In other words, the person who acted as the Appellate Authority had the same seniority/designation as the person who had passed the original order. An appeal must be heard by a person who is senior to the person who passes the original order.

8. In view of the fact that no enquiry has been held, that the self-exculpatory statement of Shri Sunil Kumar (wrongly mentioned as Sushil Kumar) has been accepted without being tested in cross-examination, and the fact that the Petitioner was not working in the department at the material time, and that the Appellate Authority holds the same post as the Disciplinary Authority the impugned punishment is such as would always shock the conscience of the Court. It is not the case of an exercise similar to disposing of an appeal. The punishment is wholly unsustainable on the face of the records.

9. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. The Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.