DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRANNIGAM LTD.THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. versus MOHINDER SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 29-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRANNIGAM LTD.THROUGH ITS 
A 
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. 
v. 
MOHINDER SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) C 
Regulations, 1990; Regulation 7: 
Dismissal of incumbent ji·om service by employer on ground of mal-
practice of stealing energy-Appeal filed against the order dismissed by 
Appellate Authority-Challenge to-High Court remanding the matter to 
authority concerned for adjudication afi·esh in terms of Regulation 7 of the D 
Regulations-On appeal, Held: No material placed on record to show that 
appellant/employer had any knowledge about the proceeding-Hence order 
passed by High Court set aside and the matter remitted to High Court for 
consideration afresh-Directions issued. 
E 
Respondent was appointed as a T. Mate and later promoted as a regular 
Line man in the Haryana State Electricity Board. His services were 
transferred to the appellant No. 1- a company. On 23.4.2002 a show cause 
notice was issued to him indicating that meter site was found with direct suppl~. 
and, therefore, he was guilty of malpractice of stealing energy. He was placed 
under suspension. Statut~ry appeal filed by him was dismissed by the authority. F 
Aggrieved, the employee filed a writ petition. When the matter was posted for 
admission, the 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 receipt of the notice. The High Court disposed of the petition by G 
remanding the matter to authority for fresh decision in accordance with 
Regulation 7 of Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & 
Appeal) Regulation, 1990. Review petition was dismissed by the High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
781 
H. 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellants contended that without even proper service of notice the 
matter has been disposed of by the High Court; that the 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. · 
B 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 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 
C fresh consideration. (784-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5271 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Orders dated 28.7.2005 and 3.2.2006 of the High 
D Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 866/2004 and C.M. 
No. 21131/2005 in C.W.P. No. 866/2004. 
E 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Vikrant Hooda, Umang 
Shankar and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Appellants. 
Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench 
F 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 
G Electricity Board on 23 .4.1972. Thereafter he was promoted as a regular line 
man. His services were transferred to the appellant No. l (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 
H assessed. The amount was paid subsequently. He was placed under 
DAKSHIN HARYANA BULi VITRANNIGAM LTD.'" MOHINDER SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. [PASAYAT, J.] 783 
suspension and charge sheet was served upon him. On I 8.6.2002 he submitted A 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.