- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 9 July 2010
- Bench
- Pradeep Nandrajog, Mool Chand Garg
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 4470/2010
Judgment
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
MOOL CHAND GARG, J JULY 09, 2010/anb
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4470/2010 Date of Decision: 09.07.2010 DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vivek Kishore, Adv. Versus SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, Mr. Anand K. Shrivastava, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG(Oral) Caveat No.129/2010. Since the respondent-caveator appears through counsel as above-noted. The Caveat is discharged. W.P.(C).4470/2010. 1. The respondent is an employee of Delhi Jal Board and was issued a charge sheet vide memorandum dated 01.04.2001. 2. The gravamen of the allegation of misconduct against the respondent was that he failed to detect the unauthorized water connection at House No.1570 to 1575, Gali Hira Singh, Navin Shahdara. 3. The respondent denied the charge and stated that after a complaint was received that an unauthorized water connection was in existence in the house in question he visited the house on 19.06.2000, but found that the allegation was incorrect. 4. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the reply filed to the charge sheet and appointed an inquiry officer. 5. The inquiry officer submitted a report, and after discussing the evidence returned a finding as under: "Sh.Sudhir Kr. Gupta – as regards the first allegation of his failure to detect the unauthorized water connection on 19.06.2000 his ZE has confirmed the visit of site as DW3. DW3 also stated that there was no connection at the site when he inspected also DW1 has stated that the connections were connected on 3rd July, 2000 and there is no evidence to the contrary adduced in the enquiry. SW.2 also stated that on 3rd July, 2000 the building was vacant and no consumption of water. In view of this the allegation does not establish against the CO beyond doubt. As regards charge no.2 the same set of evidence as against allegation 1 is relevant and the charge cannot be fully established. However, since the unauthorized connection existed on the date of vigilance raid, the allegation as a whole is taken as partly proved as nothing has come on record to indicate since when these connections were there." 6. It is apparent that the inquiry officer held in favour of the respondent in respect of the misdemeanor alleged that on 19.06.2000 he failed to detect the existence of an unauthorized water connection. A positive finding has been returned by the inquiry officer that it stands conclusively proved that by said date no unauthorized connection existed. A positive finding has been returned that the evidence suggests that the owner of the house got the unauthorized water connection, i.e., connected the internal pipes of his house to the main service line on 03.07.2000. 7. Surprisingly enough, a self contradictory finding came to be returned by the inquiry officer who held that, since it stood proved that on the date of the vigilance raid, unauthorized connection certainly exists, the charge was partially proved. 8. The inquiry officer has clearly held that the charge stood partially proved. 9. We shall be dealing with this self contradictory finding a little later. 10. The disciplinary authority submitted the report of inquiry to the respondent and called upon him to furnish a response, which he did. 11. In the response filed, the respondent pointed out that the charge as alleged had totally collapsed and that the finding that part of the charge stood established was the result of a self contradictory conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer. 12. Disposing of the response by the respondent to the report of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 06.08.2003 imposing the penalty of reduction of salary to one lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years wit
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.