Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6047 of 2005 ====================================================== Yogendra Prasad Sahu, S/o late Mahadeva Prasad Sahu, Retd. Head Clerk, R/o Diwan Road, near Ramgola Railway Crossing, Muzaffarpur Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey .... .... Petitioner/s Road, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur
Legal Reasoning
6. the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Circle, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sitesh Chandra Mitra, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Narayan, Advocate Mr. Awadh Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Addl. SC Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 7 15-04-2013 Heard the parties. By the impugned order dated 24.2.1998, vide Annexure-11, passed by the respondent Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board (in short Board) the petitioner has been visited upon the punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect and punishment of censor has been directed to be recorded in his service record, on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer in a departmental proceeding initiated against him. Patna High Court CWJC No.6047 of 2005 (7) dt.15-04-2013 2/5 It appears that while the petitioner was posted as Head Clerk in M.R.T. Division, Muzaffarpur, the respondent Board decided to initiate a departmental proceeding by an order dated 8.10.1996 (Annexure-6) with respect to a charge of misconduct. He was issued copy of chargesheet. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charge/accusation of misconduct. In view of denial of the accusation of misconduct by the petitioner, one Sri. R.P. Sinha, Deputy Director of Personnel of the respondent Board was appointed as Enquiring Officer. Accordingly, enquiry with respect to charge of misconduct proceeded. In support of the article of charge three witnesses were produced on behalf of the management-Board. Though, the petitioner had filed his written statement of defence, but despite opportunity given to him, he did not produce any witness nor he himself deposed in the departmental enquiry to dispute the charge framed against him. On conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry report was submitted, which has been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Enquiring Officer came to a conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner was correct. A copy of enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner, and second show cause notice was issued to him. After the cause being shown by Patna High Court CWJC No.6047 of 2005 (7) dt.15-04-2013 3/5 the petitioner, by the impugned final order dated 24.2.1998 vide Annexure-11 the respondent no. 3 inflicted punishment upon the petitioner, as indicated above. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the materials available on record were not properly considered by the Enquiring Officer or the disciplinary authority. He further submits that if the materials available on record are re-appraised and re-appreciated, then this Court may come to a different conclusion than that of the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority. However, he has not pointed out any procedural irregularity committed either during the course of enquiry or by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of punishment. Lastly, it was submitted that against the impugned final order of punishment, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, but that has
Decision
not been disposed of till date. Learned counsel for the respondents has apposed the prayer and has supported the impugned order. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that despite opportunity given, the petitioner did not produce any evidence/materials for disproving the charge of misconduct levelled against him. With respect to appeal filed by the petitioner it has been stated that no appeal has Patna High Court CWJC No.6047 of 2005 (7) dt.15-04-2013 4/5 been preferred by the petitioner before the prescribed appellate authority. It was strongly pleaded that the present petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone as the impugned order was passed on 24.2.1998, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2003, and thereafter, this writ petition was filed on 10.5.2005. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to point about any legal or procedural irregularity with respect to the impugned order of punishment dated 24.2.1998 (Annexure-11). This Court further finds that no satisfactory material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner ever filed an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority against the impugned order of punishment dated 24.2.1998. This Court is of the considered opinion that re- appraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence/materials collected during the course of departmental enquiry for coming to a different conclusion than that of the enquiry officer or disciplinary authority is not within the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court while exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to sit as an appellate authority and further Patna High Court CWJC No.6047 of 2005 (7) dt.15-04-2013 5/5 is not required to re-appreciate the materials/evidence for coming to its own conclusion. Further this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition suffers from vice of undue delay and laches. The impugned order of punishment was passed on 24.2.1998 while the petitioner was still in service. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.1.2003 and till then he did not challenge the impugned order of punishment. After more than two years of his superannuation, he filed the present writ petition on 10.5.2005. There is no valid explanation for such undue delay in approaching this Court. In the facts and circumstances set forth above and for the reasons rerecorded above, this writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)