Delhi High Court Subhash Chander Mehta vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution




Judgment reserved on August 27, 2015

Judgment delivered on August 31, 2015


W.P.(C) 1791/2012


..... Petitioner


Mr.Yashvardhan, Advocate

with Mr.Viyush Singh,




..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Vikram Nandrajog, Adv.

for R-1

Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna,

Standing Counsel with

Mr.Siddhartha Nagpal,

Advocate for R-2 with Mr.P.

Narayanan, Manager of R-2




  1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the show cause notices/memos no. VC-413-414/92-Vig/NDPL/07-08/41 and VC-445- 454/92-Vig/NDPL/07-08/41 dated February 2, 2008 and memos VC- 413-414/92-Vig/NDPL/08-09/06 and VC-445-454/92-Vig/NDPL/08- 09/07 dated April 22, 2008 whereby, the Disciplinary Authority has held the charges as proved and proposed the penalty of censure (vide show cause notice dated February 2, 2008) and in fact imposed the penalty of censure on the petitioner (vide memos dated April 22, 2008). As noted from the above, there were two show cause notices and two orders imposing penalty of 'censure' on the petitioner. The same is for the reason, two charge sheets were issued to the petitioner dated September 28, 1992 and October 5, 1993. The facts of both the charge sheets shall be referred to separately in this judgment.

    Charge sheet vide Memorandum dated September 28, 1992:-

  2. On September 28, 1992, a charge sheet vide memorandum dated September 28, 1992 was issued to the petitioner by the erstwhile Delhi Electrical Supply Undertaking (DESU), where the petitioner was working inter-alia alleging that (i) the petitioner energised two DLP connections in premises at GD-28, Pitampura while the building was under construction with mala fide intention and with a view to extend undue favour to a customer; (ii) the petitioner failed to exercise effective supervision over his subordinate.

  3. On January 21, 1993, petitioner submitted reply to the memorandum dated September 28, 1992. The Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated January 1, 1996 held the petitioner partially guilty in respect of the charge that he failed to exercise supervision, control and coordination over his subordinate but exonerated him in respect of the rest. On January 9, 1998, a memorandum-cum-show cause notice was issued by the Delhi Vidyut Board (for short 'DVB') proposing a major penalty as it did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated January 1, 1996. The petitioner, vide his representation dated February 12, 1998, filed his reply to the memorandum-cum-show cause notice dated January 9, 1998. An order was passed by the DVB on April 6, 1998/May 8, 1998 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay of three stages for a period of three years with the stipulation that the petitioner would not earn increments during the said period of three years. The petitioner preferred an appeal vide his letter dated June 29, 1998 before the Chairman of DVB challenging the order dated April 6, 1998. Thereafter, in the year 1998, he filed a writ petition challenging the order dated April 6, 1998/May 8, 1998 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay of three stages for a period of three years. In the year 2000, Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 was passed where under, the respondent No.1 namely Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd (formerly known as New Delhi Power Ltd) took over all the rights and liabilities towards the employees of the DVB. On April 30, 2001, petitioner retired from services. On October 23, 2001, an order was passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal dated June 29, 1998.

  4. On May 25, 2006, this Court decided the Writ Petition No.6162/1998, whereby, allowing the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground that where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it had to grant opportunity of hearing and also communicate to the charged official, the tentative reason for the proposed disagreement and directed the respondent No.1 to issue fresh show cause notice. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated May 25, 2006, it is the case of the petitioner that on July 31, 2006, November 6, 2006 and April 30, 2007, he wrote letters to the respondent No.1 to comply with the orders of this Court dated May 26, 2006. On February 2, 2008, the impugned show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.1 holding the charges against the petitioner as proved and proposing to impose a minor penalty of censure upon the petitioner and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of censure be not imposed. The petitioner submitted his reply vide his letter dated March 5, 2008. The Disciplinary Authority vide one of the impugned order dated April 22, 2008, considered the reply submitted by the petitioner dated March 5, 2008 as unsatisfactory on the ground...

To continue reading