SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Through Managing Director and
Others
Vs
Mohinder Singh (d) Through Lrs
Appeal (Civil) 5271 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No.12763 of 2006)
(Arijit Pasayat and S. H. Kapadia, JJ)
29.11.2006
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.
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.