R N Upadhyay vs Delhi Transco Ltd & Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 3410 Del

39$~
   *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 13083/2009
           R N UPADHYAY                                 ..... Petitioners
                             Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal with Ms.
                                        Kusum Sharma, Advs.
                                     Versus
           DELHI TRANSCO LTD & ANOTHER            ..... Respondents
                        Through: Ms. Nidhi Minocha, Adv. for R-1.
                                 Mr. Nikhil Singla, Adv. for R-2.
           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                   ORDER

% 18.07.2011

1. The petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). He was charge sheeted on 30th January, 1995 and which charge sheet ultimately resulted in the Disciplinary Authority of the DVB on 28 th December, 1998 imposing major penalty on the petitioner. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also unsuccessful. The petitioner ultimately filed W.P.(C) No.7339/1999 in this Court which was disposed of on 19th April, 2002; the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were quashed; however, it was left open to the Disciplinary Authority to issue fresh notice to the petitioner stating the reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the Disciplinary Authority should not differ from the report of the Inquiry Officer.

2. In pursuance of the above, the Memorandum dated 25 th November, 2002 asking the petitioner to show cause and impugned in the present petition was issued.

3. Notice of the petition was issued.

4. It is inter alia the contention of the counsel for the petitioner today that prior to Memorandum dated 25th November, 2002, the respondent No.1 Delhi Transco Ltd. had on 20th September, 2002 informed the petitioner that the order of the Disciplinary Authority stood quashed. It is further contended that the petitioner stands superannuated on 31 st August, 2000 and is now 70 years of age. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings have remained pending for long and should be dropped for the said reason only.

5. The counsel for the respondent No.2 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. states that the reply given by the petitioner to the notice to show cause vide Memorandum dated 25th November, 2002 is under consideration of the appropriate authority. It is stated that the delay was occasioned owing to the unbundling of the erstwhile DVB and the file having been forwarded by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 now only (It may also be noticed that the question as to inter se-liability of the various entities created upon unbundling of the DVB was pending consideration before the Apex Court till the year 2010).

6. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsels for the respondents No.1&2 agree that this petition be disposed of by directing to the respondent No.2 to dispose of the matter in a time bound manner and taking into

consideration the communication dated 20th September, 2002 (supra) and the long time which has elapsed and the age of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, it is directed that the decision on the reply / representation of the petitioner (to the Memorandum dated 25 th November, 2002 (supra)) be taken on or before 9th September, 2011 and keeping into consideration the aforesaid aspects and giving reasons therefor and the decision be communicated to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner for promotions from which he has been deprived be also considered by the respondent No.2 while taking the decision aforesaid.

8. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 18, 2011 'gsr'