Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1233 (DEL)

SATYA PAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2006-07-26

MANJU GOEL

body2006
MANJU GOEL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition seeks an order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the charge-sheet dated 13th and 14th October, 2005 issued against him by respondent No. 2. The petitioner was appointed as assistant Engineer in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (in short "desu") in 1976 and reached the rank of Superintending Engineer when he was transferred to North Delhi Power Limited (in, short "ndpl")/respondent No. 2. The charge-sheet dated 13th/14th October, 2005 was served on the petitioner under the signatures of Mr. Sunil Wadhwa, respondent No. 3. The quashing of the charge-sheet is demanded on various grounds. However, today at the time of hearing, Ms. S. Janani, counsel for the petitioner pressed only one of them. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the service of the petitioner has been transferred to DISCOM 3; namely North West Delhi distribution Company Limited, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are initiated by respondent No. 2; namely North Delhi Power Limited and, accordingly, the petitioner never became employee of NDPL but continued to be an employee of DISCOM 3. Accordingly, the petitioner says that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 is not sustainable. Charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 13. 10. 2005, which is annexure-P2 to the writ petition along with the Article of Charge at Page 29 and Statement of Imputation placed at Page 30. The incident in which the alleged misconduct was committed is of 3. 10. 2005, i. e. ; nearly five years after the constitution of DISCOM 3. The case of the petitioner is that if there was any mis-conduct, only DISCOM 3 should charge-sheet the petitioner and not respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) OBJECTION of respondent No. 2 is that the submissions made by the petitioner are absolutely beyond pleadings. Petitioner says that this submission is available in Ground-B, which is as under:- "because the CEO who has purportedly delegated the disciplinary powers himself has no authority to act as appointing or disciplinary authority in respect of DESU/dvb employees. In these circumstances he cannot delegate powers what he does not possess. " ( 4 ) IT is not possible to read the submissions made today in Ground-B. ( 5 ) IT is pointed out by the counsel for respondent Nos. In these circumstances he cannot delegate powers what he does not possess. " ( 4 ) IT is not possible to read the submissions made today in Ground-B. ( 5 ) IT is pointed out by the counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner in paragraph VIII of the writ petition has admitted that "discom 3 is NDPL" and in para IV of the rejoinder, the petitioner has admitted that the service of the petitioner was transferred to NDPL although the petitioner has hastened to add that the transfer was unilateral without calling for any options from the employees. The transfer was a statutory transfer as governed by Rule 6 of the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. The reference can by made to Rule 6 (2) (e) read with sub-Rule 3 of rule 6. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 has no locus to charge-sheet or take any disciplinary action against the petitioner. ( 6 ) NO other ground is pressed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.