Punjab State Power Corporation ... vs National Commission For Schedule ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5714 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No. 750/2013 & CM 1452/2013 (Stay)

%                                                  10th December,2013

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD.         ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. H.M.Singh and Ms. Shabana,
                          Advocates.


                           VERSUS

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES & ANR.
                                          ...... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Abha Malhotra, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    On 4.10.2013, the following order was passed:-

             "Once again opportunity is sought on behalf of respondent no.1
      to file counter-affidavit. Counsel for respondent no.1 states that in
      spite of communication she is not receiving any instruction from
      respondent no.1. Accordingly, as a last opportunity, counter-affidavit
      be now filed within a period of four weeks subject to payment of costs
      of Rs. 7500/- to the petitioner. Rejoinder-affidavit thereto be filed
      within a period of four weeks thereafter. In case, counter-affidavit is
      not filed within four weeks, the right to file the same shall stand
      closed.
               List on 10th December, 2013."


WPC 750/2013                                                              Page 1 of 3
 2.    In view of the aforesaid order, and the fact that no counter-affidavit

has been filed, the right of the respondent no.1 to file counter-affidavit

stands closed. Possibly, since there would be no answer to the writ petition,

therefore, respondent no.1 has not chosen to file counter-affidavit.


3.    Counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that respondent no.2 as its

employee was visited with penalty orders by the disciplinary authority

which became final on the appeal of the employee being dismissed. No

challenge was laid to the orders of the departmental authorities in a court of

law and therefore the penalty orders passed by the petitioner/employer

against the respondent no.2 became final. It is argued that once this is so,

there is no power in the respondent no.2 to ask the petitioner to file a status

report with respect to quasi judicial proceedings/departmental proceedings

which have achieved finality. I may also note that Supreme Court recently

in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees'

Welfare Assn. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 606 has held that

Commissions which are constituted under the specific Acts do not have all

the powers of a civil court unless the Acts so provides.           The statute

governing the respondent no.1 does not empower the respondent no.1 to set

WPC 750/2013                                                                Page 2 of 3
 aside the orders which are passed by the departmental authorities. I may note

that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian

Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Assn. (supra) has been

recently followed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala

and Ors. Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (2010) 4 SCC 368.

4.    In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent

no.1 is restrained from in any manner acting upon the complaint of the

respondent no.2 dated 13.5.2011 filed before the respondent no.1, and all

proceedings emanating therefrom. Parties are left to bear their own costs.




DECEMBER 10, 2013                            VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib