Delhi High Court
Shri Torhi Singh vs Delhi Electric Supply Committee on 7 March, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% W.P. (C) NO. 4442 OF 1993
+ Date of Decision: 7th March, 2011
# SHRI TORHI SINGH .....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Apurb Lal & Mr. Daleep Singh,
Advocates
Versus
$ DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMMITTEE ....Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Nikhil Singla, Advocate
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? (No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J
The petitioner was employed with the erstwhile Delhi Electric
Supply Undertaking (DESU) as an Inspector during the relevant
period. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23rd September,
1998 on the allegation that he had energised a commercial light
connection sanctioned against K.No. 614-121778 in favour of one
Shri Girbar Singh at premises of one Mr. Rakesh Kumar on the main
road of Babarpur and not at premises no. 20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma
Road, Babarpur, Shahdara where it was actually to be energised. The
charge-sheet had been issued pursuant to a complaint made against
the petitioner by one Nepal Singh resident of Village Babarpur who
had alleged that the petitioner had energised the commercial light
connection at the wrong premises intentionally after charging illegal
gratification from Rakesh. The petitioner refuted the said allegation
and in his reply to the charge-sheet he claimed that he had energised
the electricity connection at the premises of Rakesh who had
claimed himself to be Girbar Singh and during his inspection of the
premises where the electricity connection was energised the said
Rakesh had put up a name plate outside his shop showing the name
of Girbar Singh and premises no. as 20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma Road,
Babarpur, Shahdara and that Rakesh had produced all the relevant
documents issued by the DESU authorities such as receipt of security
deposit and service line charge issued by DESU for getting the new
electricity connection. He claimed that he was satisfied with the
identity of that Rakesh since he had produced all the relevant
documents which are supposed to be in possession of a genuine
applicant who applies for new electricity connection. He also claimed
that nobody else had come forward with the requisite documents in
the name of Girbar Singh for energisation of the electricity
connection for many days and he had energised the connection at
the shop of Rakesh believing him to be Girbar Singh. The petitioner
had further claimed that in the vigilance enquiry (which appears to
have been conducted before initiation of regular enquiry against the
petitioner) Girbar Singh had been examined and he had claimed that
he had neither applied for any electricity connection nor had he
signed any documents which were available in the department's file
which showed that the officials of the Commercial Department of
DESU had made a case for a new connection on the basis of forged
documents and he had been made the scape goat.
2. The reply given by the petitioner having not been found to be
satisfactory the respondent decided to initiate a regular
departmental enquiry against him to look into the aforesaid charge.
An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and in the
enquiry on behalf of the respondent, the complainant Nepal Singh,
Lallu, the landlord of the premises where actually the petitioner had
energised the electricity connection and two officials of DESU were
examined while the petitioner examined one Jagmal Singh who was
the father of Rakesh Kumar in whose shop in Babarpur the new
electricity connection in the name of Girbar Singh had been
energised. The petitioner also examined one Tota Ram who was
earlier employed with DESU and who had permitted energisation of
the electricity connection at the shop of Rakesh Kumar after
inspecting his premises along with the petitioner. One H.S. Das, who
was also earlier employed with the DESU, was also examined by the
petitioner in his defence about the procedure to be followed while
providing new electricity connections.
3. After evaluating the evidence adduced by both the sides the
enquiry officer gave his report dated 31st July, 1990 holding the
petitioner guilty. While holding the petitioner guilty of energizing
electricity connection at the premises other than the one where it
was actually to be energised the enquiry officer exonerated him of
the allegation that he had done that after accepting illegal
gratification.
4. The petitioner then made a representation to the Disciplinary
Authority against enquiry officer's report but the same was not
accepted and while maintaining the enquiry officer's findings holding
the petitioner guilty punishment of dismissal from service was
imposed upon the petitioner. He thereafter filed a departmental
appeal before the Appellate Authority but that appeal was also
rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition impugning the correctness of the
findings of the enquiry officer, the decisions of the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority.
5. The writ petition was opposed by the respondent primarily on
the ground that the petitioner had been dismissed from service after
an enquiry had been held against him in which all the principles of
natural justice were observed and full opportunity was given to him
to establish his innocence and, therefore, there was no scope for any
interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
6. I have heard Shri Apurb Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Nikhil Singla, learned counsel for the respondent and have
also perused the enquiry proceedings, copies of which were made a
part of the present writ petition by the petitioner himself and in
respect of which documents no dispute was raised on behalf of the
respondents by their counsel during the course of hearing.
7. It was forcefully argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there was no evidence whatsoever adduced by his
employer to establish that he had installed the new electricity
connection at some premises where it was actually not to be
installed and the enquiry officer had held him guilty without any
evidence to that effect. It was further submitted that just because
the complainant, who himself was involved in civil as well as criminal
cases, had claimed that the petitioner had installed the electricity
connection in the name of Girbar Singh at the premises of Rakesh
Kumar,it could not be said that whatever he was claiming was
correct since no one from the side of the DESU had been examined
in the enquiry to say that upon actual physical verification he had
found out that the petitioner had installed the new electricity
connection at a wrong address . It was further contended that a
perusal of the enquiry officer report would show that he had put the
entire burden upon the shoulders of the petitioner to establish his
innocence rather than requiring the respondents to adduce evidence
to establish the charge against him and that was a serious infirmity in
the enquiry which was also sufficient to set aside the enquiry officer
report. It was further contended that Nepal Singh had claimed that
the premises where the electricity connection in the name of Girbar
Singh was to be installed was in occupation of a firm by the name of
Reio Electricals and in cross-examination he had claimed that Rakesh
Kumar was the proprietor of that firm and so that statement of
Nepal Singh probabilises the stand of the petitioner that Rakesh
Kumar must have put a name plate of Girbar Singh with the address
20-A/3/17, Vishwakarma Gali outside his shop during the inspection
of that premises by the petitioner and his immediate superior DW-2,
Tota Ram.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there was sufficient evidence before the enquiry
officer to hold the petitioner guilty and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has hold in a number of judgments that a Writ Court will not sit in an
appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer unless they are
perverse or based on no evidence and therefore, in the present case
there is no scope for any interference by this Court in the findings of
the enquiry officer. It was also submitted that considering the fact
that the petitioner had committed such kind of an act while
discharging his duty as a public servant it can be easily inferred that
he must have done that for some illegal gratification despite the fact
that no direct evidence could be adduced in that regard by the
respondent and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service
awarded to him was most appropriate punishment which could be
given to such like public servants.
9. There is no doubt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held on
a number of occasions that a Writ Court will not interfere in the
decisions of the enquiry officer when the enquiry officer holds some
employee guilty on some evidence adduced against him and further
that sufficiency or insufficiency of that evidence is not to be
examined by the Writ Court. But at the same time the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had also observed in one of its judgments on the
point in "Narender Mohan Arya Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd.
& Ors.", (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 713 that mere ipse dixit of
the enquiry cannot be a substitute of evidence.
10. On going through the enquiry record which includes the
evidence of witnesses examined from the side of the respondents
and the petitioner one thing which becomes clear is that the person
by the name of Girbar Singh had actually not applied for any new
electricity connection. That is evident from the statement of the
complainant Nepal Singh made during the enquiry as SW-1 wherein
he had claimed that he knew Girbar Singh very well and on being
shown the file of the connection in dispute he had stated that the
signatures on various documents available in that file did not appear
to be genuine signatures of Girbar Singh and that in fact the real
beneficiary of that connection was Rakesh Kumar (in whose shop
the connection had been energised by the petitioner). I find force in
the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that based on
some forged documents electricity connection had been sanctioned
by the officials of the Commercial Department of DESU and it is also
quite possible that that had been done at the instance of Rakesh
Kumar in whose shop electricity connection was energised by the
petitioner and it is also very much possible that he had put up the
name plate showing the name of Girbar Singh and address of 20-
A/3/17 outside his shop to be shown to the petitioner and DW-2 Shri
Tota Ram, who was working as the Zonal Superintendent of that
area. DW-2 Shri Tota Ram had also claimed that when he had visited
the premises he had found the name plate with aforesaid particulars
outside the shop and since they had been shown these necessary
deposit receipts issued by DESU for the new electricity connection
they had felt satisfied that they were going to energise the electricity
coinnection at the correct address correctly in the name of Girbar
Singh. The enquiry officer, however, discarded the statement of DW-
2 on the ground that it was at variance with other evidence on
record. That finding, however, could not be given since during his
cross-examination on behalf of the respondents it was not even
suggested to him that the said statement made by him was not
correct. In fact,even in his cross-examination he had categorically
claimed that he had confirmed the particulars of the applicant as
well as his parentage from the person who showed them the receipt
for security deposit during their joint visit. Therefore, the
respondents could not have blamed the petitioner for anything done
by him after he had been given the green signal by his immediate
superior officer Sh. Tota Ram. The enquiry officer also therefore,
could not have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had done
anything wrong. I also find force in the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise he could not have
been held guilty when no official of the respondents had been
examined during the enquiry to state that the new electricity
connection had been energised at a wrong address and the enquiry
officer could not base his conclusion on the mere statement of the
complainant to that effect. On receipt of the complaint from Nepal
Singh the respondents must have deputed some official to verify as
to whether the new connection had actually been installed at the
correct address or not and therefore, that official was the best
witness who should have been examined to substantiate the charge
against the petitioner and if no official had been deputed to verify
the complaint the petitioner could not have been even charge-
sheeted.
11. I am, therefore, of the view that the enquiry officer's report in
the present case can certainly be said to be a perverse report and
the petitioner has been held guilty on no evidence at all.
12. In view of my aforesaid discussion and conclusions this writ
petition deserves to be allowed and punishment of dismissal from
service imposed upon the petitioner also deserves to be set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned
punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is
set aside and resultantly he shall be entitled to all the consequential
benefits including that of reinstatement in service, if he has already
not crossed the age of retirement. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to the costs of this petition.
P.K. BHASIN, J
MARCH 07, 2011/pg
