Delhi High Court
R.K. Bhatia vs Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. on 22 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999IIAD(DELHI)413
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal by the first respondent. The facts culminating in the writ petition could be narrated thus:
Till 1989, the petitioner was working under the first respondent Board and a place lled "Trilok Puri" was within his jurisdiction with reference to checking of meters. On the 24th of January, 1989, the petitioner inspected the premises of one Hari Shankar in respect of Meter No. K-127602 - 127588/DL installed at premises No.13/216, Trilok Puri, Delhi. The petitioner did not find any misuse. On the 8th of June, 1990, there was a joint inspection conducted by the Vigilance Department and it was found that there was misuse by the owner. On the basis of this, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer gave his report taking a view that the charge levelled against the petitioner was only partially proved and what was proved was only the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice asking the petitioner to explain why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner gave his explanation. On the 8th of July, 1997, the order of dismissal was passed.
2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, submitted that there was no evidence against the petitioner. He submitted that the meter concerned was also inspected by other meter readers subsequently on 06.05.1989, 30.09.1989 and 13.03.1990 and they had not found any misuse by the owner; on the 19th of June, 1990, there was an inspection by a meter reader and no misuse was found and the details of the reading are given in Annexure 'A' to the writ petition and when it is so, the inspection report by the Vigilance Department would not represent the correct position. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, Annexure 'A' is not disputed by the first respondent.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, further submitted that at the relevant time, namely, in 1990, Trilok Puri area was not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner and he had to do work in the area called "Patpar Ganj", and, therefore, whatever be the result of the joint inspection report of the Vigilance Department, it cannot be put against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, also submitted that no action had been taken against the owner on the ground of misuse/misuser, and there was no finding against the petitioner that he had been indulgent to the owner and the inquiry officer had stated that the petitioner had been negligent and that too without any basis. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, submitted that he the second respondent, the Additional General Manager(Admn.) had no power to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and, therefore, the order of dismissal is void in law.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bindra, submitted that the second respondent was biased against the petitioner. The ground of bias is explained by the petitioner by stating that when the petitioner represented to the second respondent that he was not at all involved in the matter, the second respondent used a very strong language and threatened the petitioner that he would design the matter against him.
5. Mr. Jayant Nath, the learned counsel for the respondents, took time for getting the records to consider the correctness of the contents of Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the writ petition. The Board could not get the relevant files. Mr. Jayant Nath, on the basis of material available on record, submitted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and findings given by the inquiry officer are findings of fact and those findings cannot be challenged by the petitioner before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Jayant Nath, submitted that there are no specific pleas relating to the ground of mala fidies and the disciplinary authority had acted on the evidence available on record, and having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, the punishment was imposed. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Jayant Nath, submitted that the respondent had the power to impose the punishment. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Jayant Nath, referred to Section 511B of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
6. I am of the view that the charge against the petitioner had not at all been proved. The inquiry officer had stated:
"After taking into account all the discussion, as above, it is concluded that the charge levelled against Shri R.K. Bhatia, CO in this case that he while working as Meter Reader in Distt. Mayur Vihar during the year 1989-90 did not report the misuse and issue statement-VII is proved only to the extent of his negligence, as he did not try to find out illegal wiring being used for commercial use, otherwise he could have reported the misuse as earlier also in the year 1988, he reported misuse for this promises. Hence, I consider that the charge levelled against Shri R.K. Bhatia, Meter Reader is partly proved."
7. The crucial fact to be noticed is that the petitioner was not the meter reader with reference to Trilok Puri region in 1990 when the joint inspection was carried out by the Vigilance Department. The first respondent had not placed any materials before the inquiry officer with reference to the meter readings made by other meter readers on 06.05.1989, 30.09.1989 and 13.03.1990. Before the inquiry officer the fact that Trilok Puri region was within the jurisdiction of the petitioner had also not been placed. Therefore, the crucial facts which would go to show the guilt of the meter reader had been ignored by the first respondent Board.
8. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in "Union of India, Vs. H.C.Goel", :
"It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under statutory rules."
9. I have carefully considered the evidence and I am unable to held that on record there is any evidence which can sustain the finding rendered by the inquiry officer. Therefore, the Board, while taking disciplinary action against its officers, should make a proper investigation and place all the relevant materials before the inquiry officer so that the truth could be found out. The first respondent Board had acted in a perfunctory manner in conducting the inquiry against the petitioner. The inquiry officer had assumed that the petitioner was negligent. The inquiry officer does not say as to how he had arrived at the decision about the negligence on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence that there was any misuse, the petitioner cannot be found guilty.
10. In view of my conclusion on merits, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into the point relating to bias and the competence of the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
11. The order dated 8.7.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.