Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 212 (DEL)

M. M. BUDHIRAJA v. CHAIRMAN, DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

2002-02-12

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2002
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) ( 2 ). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. ( 3 ). Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10. 3. 2000 imposing penalty of reduction by three stages in his pay scale for a period of two years with commutative effect. ( 4 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned order is a nullity in view of the fact that the same has been passed by Sh. N. P. Singh, Additional General Manager (A) which post had ceased to exist. ( 5 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Notification dated 24. 2. 1997 constituting the State Electricity Board and in terms thereof redesignation of post took place. The relevant clause is clause 4 (2) which reads as under: 4. Transfer Scheme. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The post of General Manager (Electricity) Additional General Manager (Technical- distribution), Additional General Manager (Technical Generation), Additional General manager (Administration), and Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the corporation shall be re-designated as Chairman, Member (Technical, Member (Technical), Member (Administration) and Member (Finance) respectively of the board. " ( 6 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that the post of Additional General manager (A) has been re-designated as Member (Administration ). ( 7 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment of the learned Single judge of this Court dated 28. 11. 1997 in CWP 1021/97 titled S. P. Agarwal Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others. It is contended that the learned Single Judge came. to the conclusion that the post of General Manager ceased to exist on 24. 2. 1997 and similarly for the post of agms it was not necessary for the constituting Authority to issue separate orders of appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that learned single Judge has noted in the said judgment subsequent notification dated 27. 2. 1997 cannot take away the rights of the petitioner therein created by Notification dated 24. 2. 1997. LPA 4 of 1998 against the judgment was dismissed on 8. 1. 1998 and the Supreme Court also upheld the same in SLP No. 1271/98 decided on 6. 5. 2. 1997 cannot take away the rights of the petitioner therein created by Notification dated 24. 2. 1997. LPA 4 of 1998 against the judgment was dismissed on 8. 1. 1998 and the Supreme Court also upheld the same in SLP No. 1271/98 decided on 6. 5. 1998. ( 8 ). Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has primarily sought to rely on the Notification dated 27. 2. 1997 in terms whereof sub clause (4) (2) referred above was omitted. ( 9 ). In view of the aforesaid the question which has to be considered is the effect of this notification dated 27. 2. 97 as interpreted in judgment of S. P. Agarwal (supra) by learned single Judge and affirmed by the Supreme Court. S. P. Agarwal s case (supra) dealt with a service dispute between the parties and the question arose whether the petitioner therein working as Additional General Manager automatically acquires the status of the Member of the Delhi Vidyut Board and whether the rights which accrued to the petitioner therein on account of the Notification dated 24. 2. 1997 can be taken away retrospectively by subsequent notification dated 27. 2. 1997. It was held that in view of re-designation of the post as Member of the Board, there did not exists by post of General Manager (Admn.) It was in these circumstances while examining the service condition and the question of designation of post that the learned single Judge held that earlier designation of post ceased exists with effect from 24. 2. 1997 in respect of the post of General Manager. No doubt an observation was also made in respect of the post of AGM to the same effect. Learned Singly Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that a right of the person acquired for a particular post in pursuance to the notification dated 24. 2. 97 could not be subsequently taken away by the notification dated 27. 2. 1997. ( 10 ). In the present case we are concerned with the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. It is not disputed that the disciplinary action has been taken by the authority which was also the appointing authority. The inter se disputes raised some issues about designation of such authority. 2. 1997. ( 10 ). In the present case we are concerned with the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. It is not disputed that the disciplinary action has been taken by the authority which was also the appointing authority. The inter se disputes raised some issues about designation of such authority. The question is whether the description of the person taking disciplinary action being defined as Additional General Manager (A) instead of as Member (Administration) would make the order nullity. The answer to the aforesaid question in my considered view would be in the negative. Learned counsel for the respondent states that post of AGM (A) continues to exit. ( 11 ). I am of the considered view that petitioner against whom disciplinary action is taken cannot make grievance and contend that the order itself is a nullity because of the issue of redesignation of the post inter se the service personnel specifically keeping in mind the fact that thp punishment has been imposed by the person who was also the appointing Authority. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of the inter se service disputes to nullify administrative action against him. ( 12 ). In view of aforesaid, I am of the considered view that grievance made by the petitioner is not sustainable. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.