NAJMI WAZIRI - (1.)THE appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th May, 2013 dismissing the writ petition No.87/1998.
(2.)THE appellant's grievance started when he was issued with a Memorandum proposing to enquire into his conduct on 8th March, 1997, detailing the articles of charges. The charges pertained to his alleged involvement in acts of instigating the innocent employees to get the House Building Advances from their GPF Accounts on the basis of bogus and fabricated documents and extract some part of the amount so sanctioned. Apparently, during the course of preliminary enquiry into the allegations, statement of various employees was recorded. The enquiry proceedings commenced and before the Inquiry Officer, some statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry were marked in evidence. While many individuals (whose statements were so recorded) did appear before the Inquiry Officer, some of them did not.
On the basis of his understanding and appreciation of the materials on record, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct which alleged to have been committed and so recorded it in the report dated 12th April, 1996. The Disciplinary Authority basing itself upon that report issued a show-cause notice on 07.03.1997 to the appellant requiring him to indicate why the penalty of dismissal ought not to be imposed upon him. The appellant responded to this by resisting the proposed action. Finally, on 10th November, 1997, the Disciplinary Authority, agreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, dismissed the appellant/petitioner. The appellant's appeal to the Chairman of the then Delhi Vidyut Board, the predecessor of the respondent (hereafter referred to as "the BSES") was to no avail. He, therefore, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.)THE learned Single Judge considered the submissions of the appellant who had urged that the pre-recorded statements made during the course of the preliminary enquiry could not have been made the basis of the material to base the findings of the guilt. The appellant further argued that the depositions of such of the witnesses who were examined during the regular enquiry were at variance with the pre-recorded statements and that the same had to be disregarded. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions and also took into consideration the materials on the record such as the pre-recorded statements as well as the deposition recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter by the impugned judgment, he dismissed the petition.