IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19211 of 2001 Date of decision: 22nd October, 2008 Munshi Ram … Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, eight civil writ petitions, i.e. CWP No.19211 of 2001 titled ‘Munshi Ram v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’; CWP No.19212 of 2001 titled ‘Ved Parkash Gaur v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’; CWP No.19213 of 2001 titled ‘Raj Kumar v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’; CWP No.19214 of 2001 titled ‘Sube Singh v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’; CWP No. 19215 of 2001 titled ‘Devki Nandan v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’; CWP No. 19216 of 2001 titled ‘Subhash Chander v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’; CWP No.19217 of 2001 titled ‘Joginder Singh v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’ and CWP No. 1412 of 2002 titled ‘Rajesh Kumar v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another’, will be decided together. Civil Writ Petition No. 19211 of 2001 All petitioners are employees of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited. Munshi Ram, who is petitioner in CWP No.19211 of 2001, was appointed on daily wage basis on 3rd January, 1980 and was regularized as a T.Mate in May, 1993 and was promoted as Assistant Lineman in May, 1997. It has been stated that in his entire service record before the registration of FIR (Annexure P-1), he was awarded no punishment and had never faced any disciplinary proceedings. Ved Parkash Gaur, petitioner in CWP No. 19212 of 2001 was employed as a Career attendant on adhoc basis on 8th December, 1977 and was regularized on 26th December, 1978. He was promoted as Meter Reader on 20th May, 1988. It has been also averred in his case that his entire service career was blotless. Raj Kumar, petitioner in CWP No. 19213 of 2001 was appointed as Meter Reader on 22nd September, 1993. In his case, it has also been averred that he was awarded no punishment during his service career. Sube Singh, petitioner in CWP No.19214 of 2001 was appointed as Meter Reader on 8th October, 1993. In his case also, it has been averred that he had suffered no blemish during his service. Devki Nandan, petitioner in CWP No.19215 of 2001, was appointed as Assistant Lineman on 14th November, 1986. It has also been pleaded in his case that his entire service record was free from any blot. Subhash Chander, petitioner in CWP No. 19216 of 2001, was appointed as Lab. Attendant on work charge basis on 20th April, 1977 and was regularized as Lab. Attendant on 7th November, 1985. He was promoted as Meter Mechanic on 6th February, 1991. He also claimed that neither any disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him, nor he earned any adverse report. Joginder Singh, petitioner in CWP No. 19217 of 2001, was appointed as Meter Reader on 20th September, 1993 and he also, as pleaded, had a good service record. Rajesh Kumar, petitioner in CWP 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 19211 of 2001 No.1412 of 2002, was appointed as Chowkidar on 7th June, 1994 and his service record is also said to be good. By these writ petitions, quashing of impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 3rd December, 2001 has been prayed for. It has been stated that qua all the employees, one cyclostyle order of dismissal was passed. It has been averred in the writ petition that registration of FIR No. 516 dated 30.10.2001 at Police Station Hisar under Sections 420, 379, 380, 484, 485, 120-B IPC had prompted the authorities to pass the impugned order of dismissal (Annexure P-2). A perusal of the FIR, which has been attached as Annexure P-1, reveals that in all 32 persons were named as accused. Mr.R.K. Malik appearing for the petitioner states that proceedings arising out of the FIR are still pending and the trial has not concluded. In the FIR, it has been stated that 32 employees of the Board had caused loss of crores of rupees by breaking seals of the electric meters, by changing their parts, lessening their speed, by reducing its reading, by changing the wheel and by stealing power. Mr.Malik has stated that generalized, vague and omnibus allegations have been leveled in the FIR and the same were required to be proved by examining the witnesses and that could only be done, in case an inquiry was held. Mr. Malik has read the impugned order of dismissal (Annexure P-2), whereby inquiry envisaged under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India was dispensed with. The relevant portion of the dismissal order reads as under: “The FIR clearly established that Sh.Munshi Ram, Assistant Lineman, is a man of criminal tendency and nature. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that it is reasonably impracticable to hold/ conduct the departmental enquiry against Sh.Munshi Ram, Assistant Lineman, in the manner provided in the erstwhile HSEB employees (P&A) Regulation- 1990 with latest amendments and adopted by DHBVNL. On the basis of record/ information available before me, I am fully 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 19211 of 2001 satisfied that this employee is notorious type of persons and yielding substantial influence in the area on his posting having links with unscrupulous elements indulging in the mal- practices inspite of being involved in criminal cases/ is a master mind behind the racket involved in tempering with apparatus/ system of the essential public utility service i.e. Electric power. I am also fully convinced that no witness will come forward to give evidence in support or charges leveled against him. In these compelling circumstances, I see no way out in dealing with this notorious official except dismissing him under the provisions of Regulation-7 (2) (d) (ii) of the erstwhile HSEB employees (P&A) Regulation-1990 with latest amendments and duly adopted by DHBVNL.” Mr. Malik has relied upon a judgment of a Constitutional Bench rendered in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985 (2) SLR 576, and has urged that there was no sufficient material with the authorities to record their satisfaction that any inquiry, as envisaged under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, is to be dispensed with. He has also relied upon a judgment of a Single Bench of this Court rendered in Ex-Constable Sangram Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 (4) SLR 536, to contend that Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.Singhvi (as his Lordship then was), after discussing the entire law, had summed up as under: “16. From the above quoted decisions it is clear that an order of dismissal or removal passed under Article 311 (2)(b) is open to judicial review and can be invalidated if the Court is convinced that the competent authority has exercised the power without application of mind to the relevant consideration. Validity of an order passed under Article 311 (2)(b) can be challenged on various grounds including the following ones:- (1) Where the authority whose satisfaction is in question has totally failed to apply its mind to relevant considerations. (2) Where its satisfaction is based on considerations, which are not relevant. 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 19211 of 2001 (3) Where the satisfaction is arrived at by the application of a wrong test or where the right questions are not asked. (4) Where the satisfaction is not ground on materials which are of rationally probative value. (5) Where the exercise of power is not in good faith.” Mr. Malik has urged that on the touchstone of the guidelines culled out in the case of Sangram Singh (supra), the order of dismissal (Annexure P-2) cannot be sustained. He has stated that punishing authority had even not formulated the charge. It has not been found as to who were the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the conclusion that the witnesses will not depose against the petitioner, could not have been arrived at. He has further stated that there was no material before the punishing authority to conclude that petitioners are notorious type of persons and therefore they hold sufficient influence. He has stated that the approach adopted by the punishing authority can be used against anybody and such generalized bald statement, without any material basis, can include any employee of the Board. He has stated that there was neither any material to substantiate this assertion in the punishment order, nor there was any evidence to corroborate the same. He has further stated that without going into individual role, complicity and incriminating circumstance, one cyclostyle order dismissing eight employees has been passed. In these writ petitions, notice of motion was issued in May, 2001. In the last seven years, no written statement has been filed. Mr.Narender Hooda is unable to explain non filing of the written statement on the part of the officials of the Board. I have asked Mr.Hooda to explain the conduct of the authorities in not filing written statement in view of the guidelines formulated by this Court in Sangram Singh’s case (supra). Mr.Hooda has failed to advance any meaningful argument. Conduct of the 5 Civil Writ Petition No. 19211 of 2001 respondent is such that even Mr.Hooda is unable to defend. Therefore, all eloquence and vehemence at the hands of Mr.Hooda can yield no fruit. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, all the above mentioned eight writ petitions are allowed, impugned order of dismissal (Annexure P-2) is declared illegal and is hereby quashed. This shall however, not entitle the petitioners to be reinstated in service. Instead, they should be deemed to be continuing under suspension. It shall be open to the respondents to hold enquiry against the petitioners in accordance with the law and pass a fresh order of punishment. Since the petitioners had not worked on their job, they shall not be entitled to salary or other monetary benefits between the date of their dismissal and the date of their reinstatement. As to what treatment should be meted out to the period of their suspension, shall be decided by the competent authority at the time of the passing of the fresh order. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 22, 2008 rps 6