DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD Vs. MOHINDER SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-118
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on November 29,2006

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. THR. MNG. DIRECTOR Appellant
VERSUS
MOHINDER SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MANIPUR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. KHWAIRAKPAM SUCHITRA CHANU [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-12-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by one Mohinder Singh. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court the said Mohinder Singh expired and was substituted by his legal heirs. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Mohinder Singh was appointed as a T. Mate in the Haryana State Electricity Board on 23.4.1972. Thereafter he was promoted as a regular line man. His services were transferred to the appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Employer'). On 23.4.2002 a show cause notice was issued to him indicating therein that meter site was found with direct supply and, therefore, he was guilty of malpractice of stealing energy. Compensation was accordingly assessed. The amount was paid subsequently. He was placed under suspension and charge sheet was served upon him. On 18.6.2002 he submitted a reply. On 13.9.2002 he was dismissed from service. His statutory appeal before the Chief Engineer (O.P.) Zone was dismissed. He thereafter filed a revision petition on 26.10.2003. The same was returned to him on the ground that the order of dismissal was passed by the officer who was the revisional authority and no other officer was available. Thereafter the writ petition was filed. It appears that on the date when the matter was posted for admission, the learned Additional Advocate General accepted notice. According to the appellants the Additional Advocate General had accepted the notice purportedly on behalf of the State and the appellants. But he did not bring to the notice of the appellant about the receipt of the notice. He was not authorized to receive any notice on behalf of the appellant. The High Court noted that none was present to represent the respondents and, therefore, the writ petition was disposed of in the absence of the respondents before it. The order of dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded to authority for fresh decision in accordance with Regulation 7 of Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulation, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation'). The High Court held that the procedure for imposing major penalty as delineated in the regulation 7 had not been followed.
(3.)Though as noted above several grounds have been taken in support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that without even proper service of notice the matter has been disposed of. Learned Additional Advocate General accepted notice although he did not have authority to do so because he was one of the panel lawyers and only after the case is allocated to him he can handle the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.