Sh. Dilip Singh vs Union Of India And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 976 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.1026/1997

%                                                       February 27, 2013

SH. DILIP SINGH                                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocate with Ms.
                                         Yasmin Zafar, Advocate.

                          versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                   ..... Respondents

                  Through:               Mr. Alakh Kumar, Advocate.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the

order dated 28.5.1996 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services.

2. Before me, the only point which is urged on behalf of the

petitioner is that after the report of the enquiry officer was received, and

which exonerated the petitioner on some charges, the disciplinary authority

upset the findings of the enquiry officer by holding the petitioner guilty

without giving a hearing to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on

disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer imposed a penalty of

dismissal from services on the petitioner. It is therefore argued before me

that with respect to those charges for which the petitioner was exonerated by

the enquiry officer, before the disciplinary authority passed an order to set

aside such findings of the enquiry officer qua those charges, the petitioner

ought to have been personally heard.

3. I have perused the record which is brought of the departmental

proceedings. There is no record of the disciplinary authority showing that

any written notice was given to the petitioner that the disciplinary authority

proposes to set aside the conclusions and findings of the enquiry officer and

the petitioner is thus called for a hearing. Though the noting of the

disciplinary authority records that petitioner was present, however,

signatures of the present petitioner do not appear in the noting to show that

the petitioner was ever present. Also, there is nothing on record to indicate

that the petitioner was informed of the proposed action by the disciplinary

authority to set aside the findings of the enquiry officer.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, since the petitioner had been

prejudiced by the action of the disciplinary authority whereby the

disciplinary authority had passed an order against the petitioner for

dismissal from services by setting aside the findings and conclusions of the

enquiry officer qua some of the findings inasmuch as the petitioner was not

given any hearing, the impugned order dated 28.5.1996 is set aside for the

limited purpose of the disciplinary authority giving a personal hearing to the

petitioner and whereafter the disciplinary authority may pass its orders in

accordance with law.

5. For the sake of clarification, I note that it is agreed by the

petitioner that though the impugned order dated 28.5.1996 is set aside, the

effect thereof will however remain till a fresh order is passed by the

disciplinary authority, but in case the disciplinary authority does not pass an

order of removal of the petitioner from services, then, the disciplinary

authority will pass appropriate consequential orders. The disciplinary

authority will after hearing the petitioner pass its orders within a period of

three months from today. The petitioner or his counsel will be given a

written notice of the date of hearing which is fixed before the disciplinary

authority.

6. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 27, 2013 Ne