Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CWJC No.1405 of 2007 (4) dt.08-05-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1405 of 2007 ====================================================== Shyam Nandan Singh son of late Mathura Singh, resident of Mohalla Mathiya Jirat ( East of National Highway), P.O.-Motihari, P.S.-Chhatauni, District-East Champaran at Motihari. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey .... .... Petitioner/s Road, Patna. 3. The Member, (Technical), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Department of General Administration, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna.
Legal Reasoning
5. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar No.1, Advocate Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 08-05-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the resolution No. 1219 dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure-24) issued under the signature of respondent-Joint Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, ( in short Board ), whereby on the basis of findings recorded in a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, he has been visited upon with the punishment of stoppage of two Patna High Court CWJC No.1405 of 2007 (4) dt.08-05-2013 2 increments of salary with cumulative effect. Besides that, other incidental punishments have also been inflicted upon the petitioner, which have been detailed in the impugned resolution dated 11.10.2004. He has further assailed the validity, correctness and propriety of the order/communication dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure-26), whereby appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order of punishment dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure-24) has been rejected. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted and working as Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Section, Power House, Under Electric Supply Sub-Division (Urban), Begusarai, he was subjected to a departmental proceeding with respect to articles of charges. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying those charges attributed to him. Therefore, an enquiry officer was appointed, and enquiry was conducted. According to him, enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report, wherein out of three charges, two charges namely charge Nos. I and II were found to have been not proved and with respect to the third charge, the petitioner was held responsible for negligence of duty. However, the competent authority disagreed with the enquiry report, and recorded his reasons for such disagreement and issued second Patna High Court CWJC No.1405 of 2007 (4) dt.08-05-2013 3 show cause notice to the petitioner. Finally, by the impugned resolution dated 11.10.2004 he inflicted upon the petitioner the punishment of two stoppage of increments of salary with cumulative effect, besides other punishments, as indicated in the impugned order. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the impugned order of punishment dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure- 24) suffers from several illegalities. Therefore, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment, preferred an appeal before the Prescribed Appellate Authority. It is highlighted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected mechanically and without application of mind by the Chairman of the Board and by the impugned order/communication dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure-26) the petitioner was informed that his appeal has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has supported the impugned original order as contained in Annexure-24 as also the impugned appellate order as contained in Annexure-26 by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Board. 5. When this Court put a query to the learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.1405 of 2007 (4) dt.08-05-2013 4 for the respondents as to whether the reasoned appellate order passed by the Prescribed Appellate Authority has been brought on record and as to whether a copy of the reasoned appellate order was ever served upon the petitioner, then he fairly conceded that the reasoned order has been passed by the Prescribed Appellate Authority in the file, but the copy of the reasoned appellate order has neither been brought on record nor it has been communicated to the petitioner. He has not disputed that except the impugned order/communication dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure-26) there is no other document to show about the rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion
Decision
that the present writ petition can be disposed of, for the present, on a very limited issue. Admittedly, the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure-24) preferred an appeal before the Prescribed Appellate Authority, which has been rejected by the impugned order/communication dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure-26). This Court is of the opinion that appeal is a continuation of an original departmental proceeding. If the petitioner had filed his appeal pointing out the illegalities in the impugned original order of Patna High Court CWJC No.1405 of 2007 (4) dt.08-05-2013 5 punishment, then the Prescribed Appellate Authority was obliged to consider all the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner and only thereafter he could have disposed of the appeal of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. Admittedly, that has not been done in the present case and by a cryptic and non-speaking order/communication dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure-26) appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected mechanically. If reasons were recorded in the file for rejection of the appeal of the petitioner, then those reasons were required to be communicated to the petitioner, and same ought to have been brought on record along with counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- Board. Admittedly, that has not been done in the present case. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order/communication dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure-26) rejecting the appeal of the petitioner is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Appellate Authority of the respondent-Board to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. 8. In view of the nature of dispute raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding, the Court further directs that the Prescribed Appellate Authority shall issue a notice to the Patna High Court CWJC No.1405 of 2007 (4) dt.08-05-2013 6 petitioner fixing a date for consideration of his appeal. The petitioner shall be obliged to appear before the Prescribed Appellate Authority on the date fixed and shall be at liberty to point out the illegalities with respect to the order of punishment imposed upon him by producing the relevant records and documents in support of his plea. The Prescribed Appellate Authority shall make all endeavours to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh in the manner, as indicated above, within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order before the respondent No. 2 or any other competent authority of the respondent-Board or the functionaries of its successor Body/Company. 9. In the result, the writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. sudip/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)