R.P.Dhiman vs D V B And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5370 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 2608/2000
%                                                     21st November, 2013

R.P.DHIMAN                                                 ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate.

                          Versus

D V B AND ORS.                                              ..... Respondents
                          Through:       Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil
                                         Jaswal, Advocates.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    By this writ petition petitioner impugns the orders passed by the

departmental authorities; disciplinary authority dated 16.4.1998, appellate

authority dated 7.10.1998 and reviewing authority dated 12.8.1999;

imposing a penalty of reduction of one increment without cumulative effect.


2.    The charge against the petitioner was that though he was in overall

control of the sub-station in front of A-118, Phase-II, Mangolpuri Industrial

Area, Delhi, he however failed to detect theft of electricity from the LT

Panel in the sub-station and failed to report the same.

WPC 2608/2000                                                                 Page 1 of 3
 3.    A show cause notice dated 9.2.1995 was served upon the petitioner,

and which was replied by him vide reply dated 20.3.1995. In this reply,

petitioner specifically took up the case that he had asked for locks for

locking of the unattended and unlocked sub-stations, but the same were not

provided. The tenor of this letter of the petitioner includes non-locking of

the sub-station. In the appeal filed against the order, there is a specific

averment that the theft took place at night at 11.30 PM, and which time was

not in the duty hours of the petitioner, and therefore, petitioner cannot be

held guilty.

4.    The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, 1990 (4) SCC 594 has held that every

quasi judicial authority must pass a speaking order i.e the order must deal

with the important contentions raised by a charge-sheeted or a guilty person,

and the order must deal with the same before arriving at conclusions. A

reference to the orders of the disciplinary authority dated 16.4.1998,

appellate authority dated 7.10.1998 and the reviewing authority dated

12.8.1999 shows that the important issues raised by the petitioner as stated

above which can have bearing of his not being held guilty have not been

dealt with.


WPC 2608/2000                                                              Page 2 of 3
 5.       Therefore, without observing one way or the other on merits of the

case, and as to acceptability of the defences raised by the petitioner, it is

agreed that matter be remanded back to the competent authority i.e the

designated disciplinary authority in order to pass a fresh speaking order in

terms of the ratio of the judgment in the case of S.N.Mukherjee (supra).

This speaking order be passed by the disciplinary authority after giving a

hearing to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority is requested to pass the

orders after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from

today.

6.       The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by remanding the matter

back to the disciplinary authority as stated above.




NOVEMBER 21, 2013                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib