Devinder Singh Gill Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126344
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
AppellantDevinder Singh Gill
RespondentHaryana State Electricity Board and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.2248 of 1996 -: 1 :- in the high court for the states of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.2248 of 1996 date of decision: february 11, 2014. devinder singh gill ..petitioner v. haryana state electricity board and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice dr. bharat bhushan parsoon present: shri salil sabhlok, advocate for shri d.s.patwalia, advocate, for the petitioner. shri hari chand, advocate for the respondents. dr. bharat bhushan parsoon, j. in this petition filed under article 226 read with 227 of the constitution of india, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 8.1.1996 (annexure p-18) whereby, while deciding the appeal of the petitioner and affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the petitioner has been ordered to be reduced to the rank of je-i till his retirement without grant of any future increments. the petitioner prays for grant of all consequential benefits, i.e., promotion, increments, seniority etc.along with payment of arrears with 18% interest per annum. the facts necessary for adjudication of the controvers.may be noticed briefly. the petitioner was appointed as junior engineer grade ii (je-ii) in the punjab state electricity board in joint punjab on kadyan vinod kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.2248 of 1996 -: 2 :- 7.7.1962 and later on, with the creation of state of haryana, his services were allocated to the haryana state electricity board – respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as the board).on 10.1.1990, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 26.10.1989 (annexure p-3) to which he submitted his reply on 5.12.1990. on the asking of the chief engineer (operation).superintending engineer, operation circle, hseb, kurukshetra submitted his comments on the reply furnished by the petitioner. departmental inquiry was held wherein the petitioner participated. the petitioner was held guilty on 12 counts except for the charges at sr.no.5, 7 and 8 out of the 15 charges which were gone into in the departmental inquiry proceedings and consequently, show cause notice dated 28.6.1993 (annexure p-12) proposing to remove him from service was issued. in response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner furnished his detailed reply vide annexure p-13. thereafter, vide order dated 19.11.1993 (annexure p-14).the secretary of the respondent-board, after considering reply of the petitioner, removed him from service. the petitioner challenged his removal from service in cwp no.15106 of 1993 in this court. on a consensus arrived at between the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by a division bench of this court vide order dated 25.8.1994 by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of statutory appeal. in pursuance of the order passed by this court in cwp no.15106 of 1993, statutory appeal (annexure p-16) preferred by the petitioner was considered by a team of four whole-time members.who after considering the entire matter in detail and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, concurred with the order of removal passed by the competent authority and passed an order dated 9.2.1995 (annexure p-17) in this regard. kadyan vinod kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.2248 of 1996 -: 3 :- the petitioner assailed action of the respondents of removing him from service. it was taken by the secretary of the board vide order dated 19.11.1993(annexure p-14).it was affirmed vide order dated 9.2.1995 by a team of four whole-time members of the board (including the chairman).the challenge was made by the petitioner by filing cwp no.3518 of 1995 wherein one of the grounds taken by the petitioner was that he was not afforded personal hearing despite his asking for the same in consonance with the provisions of the haryana state electricity board employees (punishment and appeal) regulations, 1990 framed under section 79 of the electricity (supply) act, 1948. the aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a division bench of this court holding that the regulations of 1990 were not mere ritualistic and the same rather were to be followed in consonance with the principles of natural justice. it was held that once the petitioner had asked for a personal hearing, the punishing authority was required to afford the same unless the same was declined by a speaking order making out an exceptional case against the petitioner. consequently, while allowing the writ petition, the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remanded to the punishing authority to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the reply to the show cause notice already furnished by the petitioner, though by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. pursuant to order dated 9.10.1995 passed by this court in cwp no.3518 of 1995, the matter was reconsidered by shri bhaskar chatterjee, member administration & project finance (mapf) on 8.1.1996. while hearing the petitioner in person, the mapf concurred with the findings returned by the inquiry officer and held kadyan vinod kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.2248 of 1996 -: 4 :- the counter-charges levelled by the petitioner to be without substance. however, it was felt that the charges against the petitioner were not so grave as to award punishment of dismissal from service and while modifying the earlier orders.ordered the petitioner to be reduced to the rank of je-i, as noticed earlier. contention of the petitioner in support of his claim is two-fold. firstly, he has asserted that he was acquitted in a criminal case by a court of law wherein the insinuations against the petitioner were the same. secondly, it is averred that the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer was not fair and impartial as the inquiry officer shri p.k.aggarwal earlier in point of time himself had recommended initiation of inquiry proceedings against him and said shri p.k.aggarwal was entrusted with the job to hold departmental inquiry. according to the petitioner, the inquiry officer was biased against him because the said inquiry officer was warned by the authorities on a complaint moved by the petitioner. besides the above contentions, the petitioner is also aggrieved of the action of the respondents in not permitting him to take the services of a legal counsel. the petitioner further alleged that the respondent-board is not fair in its dealing with its employees in as much as some other similarly situated employees namely shri roshan lal, sdo was paid the maintenance allowance and his suspension was revoked, whereas the request of the petitioner in this regard was not acceded to. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records minutely with their able assistance. principles of natural justice govern the conduct of kadyan vinod kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.2248 of 1996 -: 5 :- departmental proceedings. any deviation from these principles, entitles interference from a court to the delinquent official. in this case, after conclusion of the departmental inquiry, three different authorities had dealt with the case of the petitioner and all these authorities have emphatically concurred with the findings returned by the inquiry officer. while concurring with the findings returned by the inquiry officer, these authorities have dealt with each charge independently as also the evidence led against each charge and the plea of defence raised by the petitioner. in this view of the matter, the plea of bias raised by the petitioner against the inquiry officer also does not survive and stands obviated. there were as many as 15 charges out of which, qua 12 charges, finding of guilt has been recorded against the petitioner. a perusal of the record reveals that there is ample oral as well as documentary evidence led by the departmental authorities in order to sustain these charges. during the conduct of inquiry proceedings, numerous irregularities committed by the petitioner in the official records have been pointed out and the same have duly been substantiated as well. the grouse of the petitioner as regards denial of permission to the petitioner to avail the services of a legal counsel does not sustain any more because it is not the case of the petitioner that there were certain irregularities in the conduct of departmental inquiry proceedings. during the cours.of hearing, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any prejudice which might have been caused to the petitioner during the inquiry proceedings which may warrant interference by this court. no question of law, much less substantial one, has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner to assail the findings returned by the inquiry officer or the decision kadyan vinod kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.2248 of 1996 -: 6 :- arrived at by the competent authorities while appreciating the findings and the contemporaneous oral as well as documentary evidence. it is an admitted position that the petitioner approached this court in writ proceedings twice earlier while impugning the action of the respondent-authorities and in pursuance of the directions issued by this court, the departmental authorities have provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. in the given facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to him, no ground for interference is made out. the petitioner has been participating associatively in the departmental enquiry proceedings. rather, on the contrary, less to state, the competent authority has been gracious enough towards the petitioner by merely reducing the petitioner to the rank of je-i on the analogy that the charges are not grave enough to merit dismissal, contrary to the fact the gravamen of allegations include corruption charges and charges of interpolation in the official records which stand duly proved by dint of oral as well as documentary evidence. consequently, this petition is dismissed as being bereft of merit. no order as to costs. [dr. bharat bhushan parsoon].february 11, 2014. judge kadyan 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. 2. whether to be referred to the reporters or not ?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. kadyan vinod kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CWP No.2248 of 1996 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2248 of 1996 Date of decision: February 11, 2014.

Devinder Singh Gill ..Petitioner v.

Haryana State Electricity Board and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DR.

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for Shri D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri Hari Chand, Advocate for the respondents.

Dr.

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

In this petition filed under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 8.1.1996 (Annexure P-18) whereby, while deciding the appeal of the petitioner and affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the petitioner has been ordered to be reduced to the rank of JE-I till his retirement without grant of any future increments.

The petitioner prays for grant of all consequential benefits, i.e., promotion, increments, seniority etc.along with payment of arrears with 18% interest per annum.

The facts necessary for adjudication of the controveRs.may be noticed briefly.

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer Grade II (JE-II) in the Punjab State Electricity Board in joint Punjab on Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2248 of 1996 -: 2 :- 7.7.1962 and later on, with the creation of State of Haryana, his services were allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board – respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Board).On 10.1.1990, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 26.10.1989 (Annexure P-3) to which he submitted his reply on 5.12.1990.

On the asking of the Chief Engineer (Operation).Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, HSEB, Kurukshetra submitted his comments on the reply furnished by the petitioner.

Departmental inquiry was held wherein the petitioner participated.

The petitioner was held guilty on 12 counts except for the charges at Sr.No.5, 7 and 8 out of the 15 charges which were gone into in the departmental inquiry proceedings and consequently, show cause notice dated 28.6.1993 (Annexure P-12) proposing to remove him from service was issued.

In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner furnished his detailed reply vide Annexure P-13.

Thereafter, vide order dated 19.11.1993 (Annexure P-14).the Secretary of the respondent-Board, after considering reply of the petitioner, removed him from service.

The petitioner challenged his removal from service in CWP No.15106 of 1993 in this Court.

On a consensus arrived at between the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.8.1994 by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of statutory appeal.

In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.15106 of 1993, statutory appeal (Annexure P-16) preferred by the petitioner was considered by a team of four whole-time MembeRs.who after considering the entire matter in detail and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, concurred with the order of removal passed by the competent authority and passed an order dated 9.2.1995 (Annexure P-17) in this regard.

Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2248 of 1996 -: 3 :- The petitioner assailed action of the respondents of removing him from service.

It was taken by the Secretary of the Board vide order dated 19.11.1993(Annexure P-14).It was affirmed vide order dated 9.2.1995 by a team of four whole-time Members of the Board (including the Chairman).The challenge was made by the petitioner by filing CWP No.3518 of 1995 wherein one of the grounds taken by the petitioner was that he was not afforded personal hearing despite his asking for the same in consonance with the provisions of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1990 framed under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court holding that the Regulations of 1990 were not mere ritualistic and the same rather were to be followed in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

It was held that once the petitioner had asked for a personal hearing, the punishing authority was required to afford the same unless the same was declined by a speaking order making out an exceptional case against the petitioner.

Consequently, while allowing the writ petition, the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remanded to the punishing authority to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the reply to the show cause notice already furnished by the petitioner, though by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Pursuant to order dated 9.10.1995 passed by this Court in CWP No.3518 of 1995, the matter was reconsidered by Shri Bhaskar Chatterjee, Member Administration & Project Finance (MAPF) on 8.1.1996.

While hearing the petitioner in person, the MAPF concurred with the findings returned by the inquiry officer and held Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2248 of 1996 -: 4 :- the counter-charges levelled by the petitioner to be without substance.

However, it was felt that the charges against the petitioner were not so grave as to award punishment of dismissal from service and while modifying the earlier ordeRs.ordered the petitioner to be reduced to the rank of JE-I, as noticed earlier.

Contention of the petitioner in support of his claim is two-fold.

Firstly, he has asserted that he was acquitted in a criminal case by a court of law wherein the insinuations against the petitioner were the same.

Secondly, it is averred that the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer was not fair and impartial as the inquiry officer Shri P.K.Aggarwal earlier in point of time himself had recommended initiation of inquiry proceedings against him and said Shri P.K.Aggarwal was entrusted with the job to hold departmental inquiry.

According to the petitioner, the inquiry officer was biased against him because the said inquiry officer was warned by the authorities on a complaint moved by the petitioner.

Besides the above contentions, the petitioner is also aggrieved of the action of the respondents in not permitting him to take the services of a legal counsel.

The petitioner further alleged that the respondent-Board is not fair in its dealing with its employees in as much as some other similarly situated employees namely Shri Roshan Lal, SDO was paid the maintenance allowance and his suspension was revoked, whereas the request of the petitioner in this regard was not acceded to.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records minutely with their able assistance.

Principles of natural justice govern the conduct of Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2248 of 1996 -: 5 :- departmental proceedings.

Any deviation from these principles, entitles interference from a Court to the delinquent official.

In this case, after conclusion of the departmental inquiry, three different authorities had dealt with the case of the petitioner and all these authorities have emphatically concurred with the findings returned by the inquiry officer.

While concurring with the findings returned by the inquiry officer, these authorities have dealt with each charge independently as also the evidence led against each charge and the plea of defence raised by the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, the plea of bias raised by the petitioner against the inquiry officer also does not survive and stands obviated.

There were as many as 15 charges out of which, qua 12 charges, finding of guilt has been recorded against the petitioner.

A perusal of the record reveals that there is ample oral as well as documentary evidence led by the departmental authorities in order to sustain these charges.

During the conduct of inquiry proceedings, numerous irregularities committed by the petitioner in the official records have been pointed out and the same have duly been substantiated as well.

The grouse of the petitioner as regards denial of permission to the petitioner to avail the services of a legal counsel does not sustain any more because it is not the case of the petitioner that there were certain irregularities in the conduct of departmental inquiry proceedings.

During the couRs.of hearing, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any prejudice which might have been caused to the petitioner during the inquiry proceedings which may warrant interference by this Court.

No question of law, much less substantial one, has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner to assail the findings returned by the inquiry officer or the decision Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.2248 of 1996 -: 6 :- arrived at by the competent authorities while appreciating the findings and the contemporaneous oral as well as documentary evidence.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner approached this Court in writ proceedings twice earlier while impugning the action of the respondent-authorities and in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the departmental authorities have provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to him, no ground for interference is made out.

The petitioner has been participating associatively in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

Rather, on the contrary, less to state, the competent authority has been gracious enough towards the petitioner by merely reducing the petitioner to the rank of JE-I on the analogy that the charges are not grave enough to merit dismissal, contrary to the fact the gravamen of allegations include corruption charges and charges of interpolation in the official records which stand duly proved by dint of oral as well as documentary evidence.

Consequently, this petition is dismissed as being bereft of merit.

No order as to costs.

[Dr.

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon].February 11, 2014.

Judge kadyan 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.02.13 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh