Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2244 (DEL)

R. P. Dhiman v. D. V. B.

2013-11-21

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 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. 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. 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. 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.