Rajeev Sapra vs Delhi Vidyut Board And Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6735 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 26th November, 2012
+       W.P. (C) 5230/1999

        RAJEEV SAPRA                                                  ..... Appellant
                                Through:      Petitioner in person.

                       versus

        DELHI VIDYUT BOARD AND ANR.                              ..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

R. V. EASWAR, J: (OPEN COURT)

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 02.12.1998 and 17.05.1999 passed by the Chairman of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and seeking quashing thereof.

2. The petition arises this way. The petitioner joined DVB as Inspector (T) in October, 1988 and while discharging duties for the employer in Zone Prehaladpur, District Bawana, North-West Delhi he was assaulted by some miscreants and suffered fracture. He, therefore, remained hospitalized from 02.03.1992 to 18.03.1992. During this period he was on medical leave. He joined duties on 20.03.1992. On 11.11.1994 a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on the ground that while he was working as Inspector in Zone No.516(D) BWM during period 1992-93 he failed to report to the employer the unauthorized erection of 5 electricity poles/ service lines by a private agency in the land adjacent to M/s. Bombay Biscuit Factory in the area of village Shahbad Daulatpur. The poles/ service lines were erected for the purpose of

committing theft of electricity for the residents of that area. The petitioner was earlier issued a memorandum on 16.09.1994 asking him to submit his explanation within 10 days as to why he did not prevent/ report the erection of the pole and the theft of the electricity to the concerned officer. This was considered to have caused heavy financial loss to the DVB. In the charge-sheet the petitioner was charged with having failed to maintain absolute integrity and having shown lack of devotion to the duty and having acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant by violating Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964 as applicable to the employees of DVB.

3. The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 12.12.1994 to the charges and denied all allegations made in the show-cause notice. He also pointed out that he was not aware of the unauthorised construction of the poles or service lines and that there was nothing on record to support the charge that he knowingly permitted the erection of those poles.

4. An inquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges. He submitted a detailed inquiry report which is Annexure-F to the writ petition. Ultimately the inquiry officer arrived at the finding that the petitioner himself came to know about the erection of unauthorized poles/ service lines only after 24.03.1992, by which time the DVB itself had come to know of those poles on 16.03.1992 itself. The inquiry officer further observed that it was therefore possible that the poles were erected when the petitioner was on medical leave and could not have come to know about the same. This was the reason, according to the inquiry officer, why the petitioner had not given information to his superior officers about the unauthorized installation. Having said that, the inquiry officer proceeded to observe that the petitioner cannot be fully absolved of his responsibility as he ought to have informed his superior officers about the unauthorized poles/ service lines at least immediately after the joint inspection team had conducted an inspection of the site on 16.03.1992. The enquiry officer further refers to the fact that the petitioner made serious efforts to get police help to

get the unauthorised poles removed after 19.05.1992 on which date he received information about those poles. However, the police did not take prompt action and the visit of the police party to the site on 27.05.1992 proved inadequate. Significantly, the inquiry officer completely absolved the petitioner of the charge that he was aware of the existence of the unauthorised poles/ service lines and had connived with the consumers with a malafide intention and ulterior motives. On this aspect, according to the inquiry officer, no evidence had come on record. In fact, he stated that the identity of the consumers or the elements who had illegally erected poles/ service lines and committed theft have not even been established during the enquiry as testified by the prosecution witnesses, particularly the witness PW-5, who had investigated the case in the vigilance department. No evidence was also found, according to the inquiry officer to prove the ulterior motives or malafide intention of the petitioner. Eventually, the inquiry officer recorded the following conclusion: -

"In view of the above discussion, while the charge of connivance with the consumers and malafide intention on the part of the C.O. has not been substantiated for want of evidence, the illness of C.O. and his proceeding on medical leave during the crucial time period when the Pole/ Service lines were suspected to have been installed, also reduces his liability to a certain extent in not reporting the matter promptly to his superior officers. However, since he did not report the erection of these unauthorized Poles/ Service lines to his AE (Zone) and XEN (D) BWN at all, he has failed to comply with the instructions contained in office order dated 6.10.86. Ex. S-4, to this extent therefore, the charge against the C.O. Sh. Rajeev Sapre, Inspector, is substantiated."

5. Thereafter, on 16.09.1998 the Additional General Manager (A) passed an order as the competent disciplinary authority. He considered the representation of the petitioner against the show-cause notice issued to him and held that the petitioner was involved in a case of allowing theft of electricity on large scale and that the petitioner was well aware of the erection of the unauthorized poles and knowingly hushed up the

matter without taking it up with his superior officers. He, therefore, confirmed the penalty of removal from service proposed in the show-cause notice.

6. Against the order dated 16.09.1998, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority, who is the Chairman of the DVB. He passed an order on 02.12.1998 holding as under: -

"I have gone through the records of the case placed before me as well as appeal preferred by the charged official, Shri Rajeev Sapra, Inspector. E.No.30829 against the penalty of 'removal from service' imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority. In view of the I.O.'s findings that the poles were possible erected unauthorisedly during the period when the CO was on medical leave and since no malafide direct or indirect involvement of the CO is established for want of evidence, the penalty of removal from service appears to be harsh. In my opinion, the ends of justice will be met by reducing the penalty against Sh. Rajeev Sapra, Inspector, E.No.30829 to that of 'reduction by three stages in his time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect with further stipulation that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that, on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments."

7. The petitioner filed a review petition against the above order which was rejected by the competent authority by resolution No.16.99/184A dated 28.04.1999. The contents of the resolution were recorded in the order dated 17.05.1999 and conveyed to the petitioner. It is seen that the review petition was rejected on the following grounds: -

"The board considered the proposal contained in AGM(A)'s letter no.VC-9-11/94-Vig/TS/Mtg/1341 dated 21/4/99. No new points have been raised in the petition. It was also observed that the Charged Official had been negligent in taking action and in informing his immediate superior the A.E. of the existence of electricity poles from which power was unauthorisedly drawn by the Local residents. In view of this proven fact, the Board, unanimously, resolved to reject

charged Official's petition for review of the orders of the Appellate Authority."

8. It is against the aforesaid order dated 17.05.1999 and the earlier order dated 02.12.1998 that the petitioner has approached this Court in the present proceedings. The petitioner appeared in person and I have heard him at length. I have also carefully gone through the impugned orders. In the order dated 02.12.1998 passed by the Chairman, DVB, it has been noticed by him that having regard to the findings of the inquiry officer that the poles were possibly erected unauthorisedly during the period when the petitioner was on medical leave and the further finding that there was no malafide or direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner and that there was want of evidence in this behalf, the penalty of removal from service was harsh. However, he proceeded to observe that ends of justice will be met by reducing the penalty to that of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay of the petitioner for a period of three years with cumulative effect with a further stipulation that he will not earn increments of pay during the period and reduction and that on expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments. The review petition against this order was rejected by the Chairman, DVB. I am unable to appreciate how any penalty can be imposed at all on the petitioner when the Chairman, DVB, who is the competent appellate authority has himself noticed the findings of the inquiry officer which clearly favour the petitioner. The petitioner has been found to be on medical leave when the unauthorized poles were erected. The inquiry officer also found that there was no evidence to show direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner in the unauthorized erection of the poles or the theft of electricity. He also did not find any malafide on the part of the petitioner. Having regard to these findings, I do not think that any penalty was at all imposable on the petitioner. In the appellate order, the competent appellate authority had referred to these findings; nevertheless he appears to have penalised the petitioner merely with the observation that the ends of justice

will be met by reducing the penalty. Within the limits of judicial review and sitting in writ proceedings, I am aware that it is not permissible for me to examine the quantum of the penalty imposed on the petitioner. That is for the competent authorities to decide. However, it is open to me to examine whether having regard to the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, any decision can be rationally taken to levy any penalty on the petitioner. The order of the competent authority imposing penalty ought to demonstrate a rational connection or nexus or live link between the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the ultimate decision. If the findings are in favour of the petitioner, I do not see how a decision to impose even a reduced penalty can follow. The ends of justice will be met, on the facts of the present case, only by relieving the petitioner of the penalty in entirety and not by merely reducing it having regard to the clear findings of the inquiry officer in favour of the petitioner. In other words, I find that the decision of the competent authority to willy-nilly impose penalty on the petitioner and refuse to review the same, even though the inquiry officer has exonerated him from connivance in the unauthorized construction of poles/ service lines, is irrational, arbitrary and perverse. I, therefore, quash the impugned orders and allow the writ petition with costs of `5,000/-.

R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER 26, 2012 hs