Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5271 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.thr.Mng.Director & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Mohinder Singh (d) through Lrs.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12763 of 2006)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
The review application filed by the appellants on the
aforesaid ground of non-service of notice was rejected on the
ground that the order of dismissal was passed without
observance of the principles of natural justice. The High Court
set aside the same and had remanded the matter to the
authority for fresh consideration.
There is no dispute to the stand that the learned
Additional Advocate General who accepted the notice was not
authorized to receive the notice on behalf of the appellants.
It is not the case of the respondents that there was any
general authority to receive notice and only after notice is
issued the particular case is allocated to one of the lawyers in
the panel. Therefore, it is stated that the appellants had no
knowledge about the proceedings. No material has been
brought on record by the respondents to show that in fact the
appellants had any knowledge about the proceedings. That
being so, the basic order in the writ petition and the order
passed in the review application are set aside. The matter is
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. The
appellants are aware of the grievances raised in the writ
petition by the respondents. Let them file counter affidavit, if
any, within six weeks from today. Thereafter the High Court
shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any
order as to costs.