Mahendra Singh vs Delhi Power Supply Co. Ltd. on 11 June, 2018

W.P. (C) 5835/2002 Page 1 of 17
2. The proceedings against the petitioner – who, at the time, was
working as Inspector in the DVB – may be said, legitimately, to have
commenced with the issuance of Memorandum, dated 7th July, 1998
(hereinafter referred to as “the charge-sheet”), by the AGM, proposing
holding of an enquiry, against him, under Regulation 7 of the Delhi
Electric Supply Undertaking (DMC) Service (C & A) Regulations,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”), and giving him an
opportunity to show cause thereagainst. The charge, against the
petitioner, was of having accepted a bribe, of ₹ 10,000/-, from Mr.
Sushil Bansal, threatening him, in the alternative, with disconnection
of his electricity supply and issuance of inflated bills regarding
electricity consumption by him for earlier periods, as the electricity
meter installed at Mr. Bansal’s premises was defective. It was alleged
that the petitioner had directed Mr. Bansal to pay the demanded
amount of ₹ 10,000/- by the afternoon of 24th February, 1995, and to
bring, with him, a copy of his last paid Bill, or security deposit receipt,
in respect of the electric meter installed at his workshop, so that it
could be replaced. Mr. Bansal, thereupon, as per the charge-sheet,
lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the Anti-
Corruption Branch (ACB), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
which registered a case and set up a trap, to catch the petitioner red-
handed. In accordance with the said plan, ₹ 5000/- was handed over,
by Mr. Bansal to the CBI, which was treated with phenolphthalein. In
the afternoon of 24th February, 1995, it was alleged that the petitioner
dropped by the workshop of Mr. Bansal, and asked him to pay ₹
10,000/-, instead of the earlier demanded ₹ 5000/- and that, in view of
the inflated demand, Mr. Bansal carried, with him, another amount of

W.P. (C) 5835/2002 Page 2 of 17
₹ 5000/-, from his workshop. It was alleged that, thereafter, Mr.
Bansal, accompanied by Mr. H. R. Gambhir, a shadow witness,
proceeded to the juice shop, designated at the spot where the money
was to be handed over, to the petitioner and that, after the money was
handed over, the officials of the CBI apprehended the petitioner and,
from his trouser pocket, recovered ₹ 5000/-. (The Recovery Memo
prepared on the spot refers to recovery of ₹ 5000/-, and not ₹
10,000/-, though the oral evidence that emerged during enquiry was to
the effect that ₹ 10,000/- was recovered from the petitioner.) It was
further alleged that the petitioner’s hands were, thereafter, dipped in
sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink, thereby proving that
the notes recovered from his trouser pocket were the same notes which
had been handed over, by Mr. Bansal, to the CBI and treated, earlier,
with phenolphthalein. The chargesheet proceeded to observe that, by
thus accepting bribe from Mr. Bansal, the petitioner had exhibited lack
of integrity, devotion to duty, and had acted in a manner unbecoming
of a public servant, thereby contravening clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of
Rule 3 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964
[hereinafter referred to as “the CCS (Conduct) Rules], rendering him
liable to be proceeded against, departmentally, under Regulation 7 of
the Regulations.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply