- (1.) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th December, 1975 passed by the General Manager and Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Memo No. WG-81/55-2048 dated 14. 3. 60 in terms of Clause (ii) and (iv) of Regulation 96 of D. V. C. Service Regulation. The said order interalia, provides :- "a) The existing pay of Shri Ghosh shall be reduced by the equivalent on one increment, in his present time scale with effect from 1st january, 1976. b) No increment shall accrue to him during the next three years from 1. 1. 1976 with cumulative effect. c) During this period of three years he shall not be considered for any promotion. "
(2.) REGULATION 96 of D. V. C. Service Regulation runs as follows :- "regulation 96 : The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on an employee of the Corporation, namely - (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of increment or promotion: (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any peculniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of order; (iv) Reduction to a lower class of post or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in time scale; (v) Compulsory retirement of employee in permanent employment (vi) Removal from the service of the Corporation, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. (vii) Dismissal from the service of the Corporation which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.
(3.) FOR the purpose of true appreciation of the question involved in the instant writ petition, it is necessary to consider the facts which are, inter alia, stated hereinafter : a) On 17. 12. 63 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the D. V. C. and was posted at Maithan. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Operation and maintenance) and was posted in the office of the Chief Engineer (Operation and Maintenance) D. V. C. b) On 1. 6. 68 the General Superintendent (Central Load Despatch)D. V. C. Maithan addressed a letter to the Controller of Purchase. and Stores D. V. C. Calcutta stating that the cables offered by M/s. Asian Cables against item No. 1 and 2 are also acceptable to them on the basis of the sample sent by them. But whether order for item Nos. 1 and 2 also can be placed on M/s. Asian Cables is a matter to be decided by the Calcutta Office. It was also stated that besides the offer of M/s. Asian Cables, offers of following tenders are also technically acceptable to them on the bais of samples received. 1) M/s. Radio and Electricals Mfg. Co. for item Nos. 1. 2 and 3. 2) M/s. Premier Cables for items 2 and 3. 3) M/s. Power Cables for items 1, 2 and 3 provided those are of standard conductor. c) On 10. 7. 68 the General Superintendent, Central Load Despatch d. V. C. Calcutta on the subject of D. V. C. Flexible Central Cable, asking him whether orders for item Nos. 1 and 2 have been placed or not. It was stated that if M/s. Power Cables have not confirmed that their cables are of standard conductors, order should go to the next lower bidder amongst those whose offers have been technically accepted. d) The Director of Personnel, D. V. C. issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner on the allegation that during July 1968 while he was looking after the purchase of certain goods and materials on behalf of the Corporation he has committed gross misconduct in placing the order to M/s. Asian Cables Corporation whose rates were higher that of other tenderers, which caused heavy loss to the Corporation. He was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against Mm under Regulation 96 of the d. V. C. Service Regulations. e) On 20. 3. 71 the petitioner gave a reply to the said chargesheet denying the allegations against him. f) On 3. 8. 71 the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of investigation S. P. E. Division Calcutta intimated the Dy. Chief electrical Engineer (C and M) D. V. C. Maithan Dam that henceforth the case world be presented by Sri H. N. Paul, Inspector of the said branch. g) On 20. 3. 75 the General Manager and Secretary of D. V. C. issued a second show cause notice stating why he should to be dismissed from service. under Regulation S6 (vii) of the D. V. C. Service regulation. The same was coupled with enquiry report. h) On 1. 9. 75 the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice.;