Latest news with #DakshinHaryanaBijliVitranNigamLimited
Indian Express
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Haryana engineer's double suspension sparks outrage; DHBVNL to launch stir
The employees and engineers of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) have announced to launch an agitation in protest against the continued action against a superintendent engineer who was suspended twice within a week. Superintendent Engineer Hari Dutt was first suspended by Power and Labour Minister Anil Vij on April 16 over his alleged failure to answer another Cabinet Minister Mahipal Dhanda's phone call. As the Punjab and High Court had quashed his first suspension, the DHBVNL suspended him again on April 23. Dutt had challenged his first suspension before the High Court. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ashwani Talwar argued that the suspension was triggered by Dutt's failure to respond to a phone call from a minister on April 16, as reported in the media. Opposing counsel Prince Singh contended that the action was based on poor recovery rates in Dutt's division and that a charge sheet was being prepared. On April 22, a bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal set aside the suspension of Dutt, describing the order as 'non-speaking and mechanical'. In his ruling, Justice Bansal observed: 'From the perusal of the suspension order, it is evident that no reason has been assigned for placing the petitioner under suspension. There may be many reasons for placing an employee under suspension; however, the employer is duty-bound to disclose at least one reason'. However, the court granted liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh order, if necessary, in accordance with the law. On April 23, the Managing Director (MD) of DHBVNLL issued an order to suspend the officer again 'in view of contemplated disciplinary proceedings against him under Regulation-7 of DHBVNL Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations-2019 for imposition of major penalty on account of his non-performance and lack of supervision as SE/OP Circle, DHBVNL, Jind.' In the suspension order, the MD also underlined that it has been issued 'in terms of liberty granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision' of April 22. Subhash Lamba, Vice President of the Electricity Employees Federation of India, has condemned the double suspension of the officer, calling it an act of vendetta and revenge. He stated that the officer was unable to attend the cabinet minister's call as he was engaged in a high-level official meeting at the time. Describing 'it an act of retaliation', Lamba said the authorities suspended the officer again after he secured a stay from the High Court against his initial suspension. Lamba further emphasised that meetings are being held to strategize a strong opposition against the suspension. 'A formal announcement on the course of action is expected in the coming days,' he added.
Indian Express
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC quashes Haryana engineer's suspension for not answering minister's call
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday quashed an order by which a superintendent engineer of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) was suspended by Power and Labour Minister Anil Vij over his alleged failure to answer another Cabinet Minister Mahipal Dhanda's phone call Superintendent Engineer Hari Dutt was suspended by Vij on April 16 following a complaint from Dhanda. A bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal set aside the suspension of Dutt, describing the order as 'non-speaking and mechanical.' The court underscored the responsibility of administrative authorities to provide clear and specific reasons for punitive actions. The judgment came on a petition filed by Dutt, challenging his suspension. The DHBVNL directive had placed him under immediate suspension and instructed him to mark attendance at the office of the Chief Engineer (Operations), DHBVNL, Delhi. He was to receive subsistence allowance under Rule 83 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ashwani Talwar argued that the suspension was triggered by Dutt's failure to respond to a phone call from a minister on April 16, as reported in the media. Opposing counsel Prince Singh contended that the action was based on poor recovery rates in Dutt's division and that a charge sheet was being prepared. In his ruling, Justice Bansal observed: 'From the perusal of the suspension order, it is evident that no reason has been assigned for placing the petitioner under suspension. There may be many reasons for placing an employee under suspension; however, the employer is duty bound to disclose at least one reason'. He held that the absence of any stated reason rendered the suspension legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. However, the court granted liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh order, if necessary, in accordance with the law.
