Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was appointed with the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as “DESU”) and later got transferred to Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 2”) under a Transfer Scheme.
Thereafter, a complaint was filed with Respondent No. 2, its officials, and the SHO against the inspector of Delhi Vidyut Board and a private resident of Rohini. It was alleged that the Inspector had installed new meters at the residents’ houses in Rohini and took money for the same. However, he did not issue any receipt regarding the said amount. Moreover, the private individual had threatened the Complainant to sign blank cheques.
Based on the said complaint, the services of the Petitioner were suspended on the grounds of his involvement in the vigilance case. There was a disciplinary proceeding held against him on the charges that firstly his intentions for replacing the said meters were ill and mala-fide, secondly that he had obtained the meter for replacing the meter without jurisdiction, and lastly that he had installed the meter for unauthorized use of spare electricity.
After the submission of the inquiry report, the Petitioner was charged with a major penalty of removal from services, and aggrieved by this order the Petitioner has now filed this instant writ petition. The writ petition is filed to quash the orders passed by the Respondent vide which the petitioner was removed from the services and to seek the release of his salary.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the complaint did not even mention the name of the Petitioner anywhere and therefore the vigilance case against him was arbitrarily initiated.
It was also contended that the inquiry report was defective as it did not adhere to the DESU (DMC) Service (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “DESU Regulations”). The inquiry officer did not bring forth findings with regard to each of the alleged charges and the Petitioner was not given the opportunity of an oral hearing even after requesting the same.
It was argued that the inquiry was done without any evidence as there was no substantial evidence to prove that the Petitioner was involved in the installation or taking of the meter.
Another contention made was that the authority terminating the services of the Petitioner was not competent to pass a termination order. The Petitioner contended that his Appointing, as well as Disciplinary authority, was Municipal officers of Respondent No.1 and the Delhi Vidyut Board.
The Petitioner contended that as per Section 95 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the services of a Municipal Employee cannot be determined by a person subordinate to the Appointing authority. Article 311 of the Constitution also mandates that the services of an employee under Civil Service cannot be terminated by an authority subordinate to them and that reasonable opportunity of being heard has to be given to the employee.
The petitioner also alleged that the departmental inquiry was unfair as it was conducted with a pre-determined mind.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was contended that the petition was not maintainable as the Petitioner has the option of other alternative remedies.
It was also contended that since the charges levied are grave in nature, the same resulted in a lack of confidence and therefore, a vigilance inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner.
It was argued that as per Rule6(6) of the Transfer Scheme, the personnel transferred ceased to be in the service of the Delhi Vidyut Board. It was only till the new rules that the existing service conditions of the board applied to the services of the Petitioner. But w.e.f. July 1st, 2002, the Board of Directors of the company is the Appointing and Disciplinary authority of all the transferred employees.
It was contended that vide board resolutions passed, Respondent No.3 was competent to take disciplinary actions against the Petitioner. Moreover, the disciplinary action was ratified by Respondent No.2 who is the highest body of the Company, and hence, the termination of the Petitioner was within the provisions of the law.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar the Court from exercising its Writ jurisdiction under article 226. The contention of the Respondent for the maintainability of the suit was rejected.
On the question of whether the removal order was passed by a competent authority, the Court observed that it was evident from the various provisions of the Transfer Scheme that post the absorption of the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 2, the Respondent was not entitled to claim any benefit from the transferor entity. The intention of the framers of the scheme was clear that after the transfer, the provisions of the transferee entity have to be applied. The DESU regulations were applicable only until the regulations of the transferee entity were being framed.
On the question of whether Respondent No. 3 was subordinate to the Petitioner, the Court noted that the CEO clearly had the power to look into the matters of disciplinary actions and even had the power to delegate the same to a competent authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent No. 3 was a subordinate authority or that it did not have the competence to pass a removal order.
On the question of whether an inquiry was held as per the prescribed procedure, the Court reiterated that the correct procedure is that the authority has to issue a show cause notice and afford an opportunity of being heard along with considering the replies/objections to the charges. An inquiry officer has to be appointed who conducts inquiry proceedings and submits a report that has to be considered by the disciplinary authority and finally, the authority passes an order either upholding or dismissing the decision of the inquiry officer.
In the present case, the Court did not find any discrepancies in the procedure followed by the Respondents.
On the question of whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice, the Court observed that the Petitioner, at all times, was given the fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice.
Looking at other relevant considerations such as whether the authorities did not reach a fair conclusion or whether they were biased etc, the Court noted that there was no bias or prejudice on the part of the authorities and the same has not even been contended by the Petitioner. The inquiry officer cannot be said to be influenced by any extraneous circumstances as the decision was made based on documentary and oral evidence.
The Court also observed that it was well proved that the petitioner had made requests at the behest of the consumers and had them processed with deficient documents. There is also enough evidence on record to prove that the Petitioner was involved in the installation of a meter for unauthorized purposes. This act of his was directly in dereliction of his duty and misconduct which could not have been excused.
The court also propounded that as per the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. v. P.K. Khanna (2005 7 SCC 597); in cases where the authority is dissenting with the inquiry officer, it has to furnish detailed reasons but when it comes to upholding the decision of the inquiry officer, it need not record detailed reasons for the same and therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the disciplinary authority did not record reasons for concurring with the inquiry officer is rejected.
Findings of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, jurisprudence laid down by the Hon’ble SC, and also keeping in mind the limited extent of the powers available under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that it was not inclined to interfere with the decision of the relevant authorities. It also opined that the orders passed were not suffering from any gross illegality or error apparent on the record that warranted the interference of the Court in the present matter. Based on this, the petition was dismissed.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
