Sri Ram Pramod Jha v. The Bihar State Electricity Board

Sri Ram Pramod Jha Son of Late Surya Narayan Jha Resident of Mohalla- Bara Pathar, in the town of Samastipur, District-Samatipur, retired as Deputy Director Personnel Central Bihar Area Electricity Board .... .... Petitioner-Appellant Versus

The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Patna

The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna

The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Central Administrative Department, Patna

The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur ====================================================== .... .... Respondents-Respondents Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

3. 15-03-2012 Interlocutory Application No.1775 of 2012: The delay of 33 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 2 Patna High Court LPA No.300 of 2012 (3) dt.15-03-2012 Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.300 of 2012: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order 20th December 2011 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15406 of 2005. The appellant, a retired employee of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’), filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 15406 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of punishment dated 29th December 1999 confirmed by the appellate authority on 9th July 2005. It appears that the petitioner, then a Personnel Officer in the Board allowed an alteration in the service-book of a workman, one Shri Sheo Shankar Rai, in respect of the entry of the date of birth of the workman.

In view of the said act of commission, by order dated 9th July 1999, the appellant had been placed under suspension. Pursuant to his representation made on 13th August 1999, by order dated 29th December 1999, the appellant was visited with punishment of censure and withholding of one increment without future effect. The period of suspension was also treated as such. In other words, the appellant was not allowed to draw salary except the subsistence allowance for the period under suspension. After a round of litigation in C.W.J.C. No. 7029 of 2004, the aforesaid order of punishment was upheld by the appellate authority on 19th July 2005. In the meantime, the appellant, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31st January 2003. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ 3 Patna High Court LPA No.300 of 2012 (3) dt.15-03-2012 petition on the premise that the punishment imposed was minor punishment.

The punishment had been exhausted and the appellant was not prejudiced as he had been given promotion. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the challenge to the order of punishment could not have been rejected as the punishment was imposed upon the appellant without holding due enquiry. Unless there were enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the relevant service Regulations no punishment could have been imposed upon the appellant. Although, the appellant may not have been prejudiced, the appellant has a right to challenge the order of punishment. The appellant had an unblemished career throughout. The order of punishment cast stigma upon the appellant. On perusal of the counter affidavit in the writ petition filed by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, it is evident that the Board did contemplate a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant.