Shri Torhi Singh vs Delhi Electric Supply Committee

P.K. Bhasin, J.—The Petitioner was employed with the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) as an Inspector during the relevant period. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23rd September, 1998 on the allegation that he had energised a commercial light connection sanctioned against K. No. 614-121778 in favour of one Shri Girbar Singh at premises of one Mr. Rakesh Kumar on the main road of Babarpur and not at premises No. 20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma Road, Babarpur, Shahdara where it was actually to be energised. The charge-sheet had been issued pursuant to a complaint made against the Petitioner by one Nepal Singh resident of Village Babarpur who had alleged that the Petitioner had energised the commercial light connection at the wrong premises intentionally after charging illegal gratification from Rakesh. The Petitioner refuted the said allegation and in his reply to the charge-sheet he claimed that he had energised the electricity connection at the premises of Rakesh who had claimed himself to be Girbar Singh and during his inspection of the premises where the electricity connection was energised the said Rakesh had put up a name plate outside his shop showing the name of Girbar Singh and premises No. as 20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma Road, Babarpur, Shahdara and that Rakesh had produced all the relevant documents issued by the DESU authorities such as receipt of security deposit and service line charge issued by DESU for getting the new electricity connection. He claimed that he was satisfied with the identity of that Rakesh since he had produced all the relevant documents which are supposed to be in possession of a genuine applicant who applies for new electricity connection. He also claimed that nobody else had come forward with the requisite documents in the name of Girbar Singh for energisation of the electricity connection for many days and he had energised the connection at the shop of Rakesh believing him to be Girbar Singh. The Petitioner had further claimed that in the vigilance enquiry (which appears to have been conducted before initiation of regular enquiry against the Petitioner) Girbar Singh had been examined and he had claimed that he had neither applied for any electricity connection nor had he signed any documents which were available in the department''s file which showed that the officials of the Commercial Department of DESU had made a case for a new connection on the basis of forged documents and he had been made the scape goat.

The reply given by the Petitioner having not been found to be satisfactory the Respondent decided to initiate a regular departmental enquiry against him to look into the aforesaid charge. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and in the enquiry on behalf of the Respondent, the complainant Nepal Singh, Lallu, the landlord of the premises where actually the Petitioner had energised the electricity connection and two officials of DESU were examined while the Petitioner examined one Jagmal Singh who was the father of Rakesh Kumar in whose shop in Babarpur the new electricity connection in the name of Girbar Singh had been energised. The Petitioner also examined one Tota Ram who was earlier employed with DESU and who had permitted energisation of the electricity connection at the shop of Rakesh Kumar after inspecting his premises along with the Petitioner. One H.S. Das, who was also earlier employed with the DESU, was also examined by the Petitioner in his defence about the procedure to be followed while providing new electricity connections.

After evaluating the evidence adduced by both the sides the enquiry officer gave his report dated 31st July, 1990 holding the Petitioner guilty. While holding the Petitioner guilty of energizing electricity connection at the premises other than the one where it was actually to be energised the enquiry officer exonerated him of the allegation that he had done that after accepting illegal gratification.

The Petitioner then made a representation to the Disciplinary Authority against enquiry officer''s report but the same was not accepted and while maintaining the enquiry officer''s findings holding the Petitioner guilty punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the Petitioner. He thereafter filed a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority but that appeal was also rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition impugning the correctness of the findings of the enquiry officer, the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority.

The writ petition was opposed by the Respondent primarily on the ground that the Petitioner had been dismissed from service after an enquiry had been held against him in which all the principles of natural justice were observed and full opportunity was given to him to establish his innocence and, therefore, there was no scope for any interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

I have heard Shri Apurb Lal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Nikhil Singla, learned Counsel for the Respondent and have also perused the enquiry proceedings, copies of which were made a part of the present writ petition by the Petitioner himself and in respect of which documents no dispute was raised on behalf of the Respondents by their counsel during the course of hearing.

It was forcefully argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was no evidence whatsoever adduced by his employer to establish that he had installed the new electricity connection at some premises where it was actually not to be installed and the enquiry officer had held him guilty without any evidence to that effect. It was further submitted that just because the complainant, who himself was involved in civil as well as criminal cases, had claimed that the Petitioner had installed the electricity connection in the name of Girbar Singh at the premises of Rakesh Kumar,it could not be said that whatever he was claiming was correct since no one from the side of the DESU had been examined in the enquiry to say that upon actual physical verification he had found out that the Petitioner had installed the new electricity connection at a wrong address . It was further contended that a perusal of the enquiry officer report would show that he had put the entire burden upon the shoulders of the Petitioner to establish his innocence rather than requiring the Respondents to adduce evidence to establish the charge against him and that was a serious infirmity in the enquiry which was also sufficient to set aside the enquiry officer report. It was further contended that Nepal Singh had claimed that the premises where the electricity connection in the name of Girbar Singh was to be installed was in occupation of a firm by the name of Reio Electricals and in cross-examination he had claimed that Rakesh Kumar was the proprietor of that firm and so that statement of Nepal Singh probabilises the stand of the Petitioner that Rakesh Kumar must have put a name plate of Girbar Singh with the address 20-A/3/17, Vishwakarma Gali outside his shop during the inspection of that premises by the Petitioner and his immediate superior DW-2, Tota Ram.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that there was sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer to hold the Petitioner guilty and the Hon''ble Supreme Court has hold in a number of judgments that a Writ Court will not sit in an appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer unless they are perverse or based on no evidence and therefore, in the present case there is no scope for any interference by this Court in the findings of the enquiry officer. It was also submitted that considering the fact that the Petitioner had committed such kind of an act while discharging his duty as a public servant it can be easily inferred that he must have done that for some illegal gratification despite the fact that no direct evidence could be adduced in that regard by the Respondent and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him was most appropriate punishment which could be given to such like public servants.

There is no doubt that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held on a number of occasions that a Writ Court will not interfere in the decisions of the enquiry officer when the enquiry officer holds some employee guilty on some evidence adduced against him and further that sufficiency or insufficiency of that evidence is not to be examined by the Writ Court. But at the same time the Hon''ble Supreme Court had also observed in one of its judgments on the point in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, that mere ipse dixit of the enquiry cannot be a substitute of evidence.

On going through the enquiry record which includes the evidence of witnesses examined from the side of the Respondents and the Petitioner one thing which becomes clear is that the person by the name of Girbar Singh had actually not applied for any new electricity connection. That is evident from the statement of the complainant Nepal Singh made during the enquiry as SW-1 wherein he had claimed that he knew Girbar Singh very well and on being shown the file of the connection in dispute he had stated that the signatures on various documents available in that file did not appear to be genuine signatures of Girbar Singh and that in fact the real beneficiary of that connection was Rakesh Kumar (in whose shop the connection had been energised by the Petitioner). I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that based on some forged documents electricity connection had been sanctioned by the officials of the Commercial Department of DESU and it is also quite possible that that had been done at the instance of Rakesh Kumar in whose shop electricity connection was energised by the Petitioner and it is also very much possible that he had put up the name plate showing the name of Girbar Singh and address of 20-A/3/17 outside his shop to be shown to the Petitioner and DW-2 Shri Tota Ram, who was working as the Zonal Superintendent of that area. DW-2 Shri Tota Ram had also claimed that when he had visited the premises he had found the name plate with aforesaid particulars outside the shop and since they had been shown these necessary deposit receipts issued by DESU for the new electricity connection they had felt satisfied that they were going to energise the electricity coinnection at the correct address correctly in the name of Girbar Singh. The enquiry officer, however, discarded the statement of DW-2 on the ground that it was at variance with other evidence on record. That finding, however, could not be given since during his cross-examination on behalf of the Respondents it was not even suggested to him that the said statement made by him was not correct. In fact,even in his cross-examination he had categorically claimed that he had confirmed the particulars of the applicant as well as his parentage from the person who showed them the receipt for security deposit during their joint visit. Therefore, the Respondents could not have blamed the Petitioner for anything done by him after he had been given the green signal by his immediate superior officer Sh. Tota Ram. The enquiry officer also therefore, could not have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had done anything wrong. I also find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even otherwise he could not have been held guilty when no official of the Respondents had been examined during the enquiry to state that the new electricity connection had been energised at a wrong address and the enquiry officer could not base his conclusion on the mere statement of the complainant to that effect. On receipt of the complaint from Nepal Singh the Respondents must have deputed some official to verify as to whether the new connection had actually been installed at the correct address or not and therefore, that official was the best witness who should have been examined to substantiate the charge against the Petitioner and if no official had been deputed to verify the complaint the Petitioner could not have been even charge-sheeted.

I am, therefore, of the view that the enquiry officer''s report in the present case can certainly be said to be a perverse report and the Petitioner has been held guilty on no evidence at all.

In view of my aforesaid discussion and conclusions this writ petition deserves to be allowed and punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the Petitioner also deserves to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the Petitioner is set aside and resultantly he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including that of reinstatement in service, if he has already not crossed the age of retirement. The Petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of this petition.