Delhi HC sets aside Vidyut Board dismissal order that smacked of bias against labour class

Stating that the reason to dispense with a departmental inquiry “smacked of bias against labour class”, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Delhi Vidyut Board dismissing four employees on allegations of corruption..The Court has thus directed Delhi Vidyut Board to pay the dismissed employees arrears of back-wages calculated from the date of their respective dismissals up to the date of superannuation. It has also directed Delhi Vidyut Board to pay other statutory payments like leave encashment, gratuity, PF, pensions etc. within eight weeks..Additionally, the Court has imposed costs of Rs.10,000 payable by the Delhi Vidyut Board to the legal heirs of each of the dismissed employees..The judgment was passed by a Division Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and IS Mehta in an appeal against the order of a Single Judge Bench, which had upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appellants..The four appellants in the case were employed with the Delhi Vidyut Board at various positions. In a TV interview in January 2000, another employee, Nafe Singh, stated that the line staff of the complaint centre of Delhi Vidyut Board were accepting bribes..Eventually, during an investigation by the Vigilance Department, Singh claimed that the four appellants took a bribe from the owner of M/s Himalaya Overseas Ltd, Rajinder Saluja. Based on a complaint by Saluja, an inquiry was conducted..Subsequently, the appellants were dismissed from service on March 8, 2000 by Delhi Vidyut Board without any departmental inquiry against them in terms of Rule 14 of The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965..Invoking Rule 19(ii) of The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) of Delhi Vidyut Board recorded that it was personally satisfied that given the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not “reasonably practicable” to hold the departmental inquiry against the four..It justified its decision to not hold a departmental inquiry on the ground that since the four employees “are low paid employees and virtually belong to labour class”, in the event an inquiry is held “there is real danger of their fellow employees, getting influenced by misguided loyalty, treating labour problems resulting in disruption of public services.”.It opined that the four employees were “in an unusually advantageous position and would, therefore, normally be able to influence the witnesses and the inquiry and prevent it from being conducted in an effective and impartial manner.”.The Appellate Authority also upheld the decision taken by the DA. It held that the usual procedure was rightly dispensed with, and that principles of natural justice were not violated..The Single Judge Bench also held that orders did not suffer from any palpable error. The appellants, therefore, moved a letters patent appeal before the Delhi High Court..After analysing the merits of the case, the Court ruled in favour of the appellants..Holding that the reasons given by DA for dispensing with the inquiry were “irrelevant”, the Court observed that the statement on employees being in an advantageous position as they belong to “the labour class” smacked of bias against them..“In the circumstances, the statement that because the four employees belonged to “the labour class” they may be in an advantageous position and would be able to influence witnesses smacks of bias against the labour class as a whole.”.There was no question of the complainant or others being influenced by “misguided loyalty” or “creating labour problems resulting in disruption of public services” , the Court added..It further remarked,.“None of this can be accepted as a conclusion that could be arrived at by a reasonable person…There is no indication that the DA was facing in hostility that made it impossible for him to hold an enquiry.”.The Court concluded that the prevailing situation was not such that it was impossible to hold a departmental inquiry..Holding that there was no justification whatsoever for dispensing with the inquiry, the Court set aside the order of dismissal as well as the decisions of the Appellate Authority and the Single Judge..While allowing the appeal, it also directed Delhi Vidyut Board to pay the arrears of back-wages and other statutory payments to the dismissed employees. In case the employee has expired, the amount would be paid to his legal heir..Delhi Vidyut Board was represented by Advocates Sandeep Prabhakar and Vikas Mehta..The appellants were represented by Advocate Kamal Mehta..Read the Judgment:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.