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.