Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12331 of 2008 ====================================================== Taranand Dev Arvind, S/o Late Anuplal , retired Electrical Executive Engineer, resident of village – Pohaddibela, P.S. – Ghanshyampur, District - Darbhanga, at present residing of Mohalla – Eastern Bhikhachak, Damariya, P.S. – Gardanibagh, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 800001. 2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. Finance Controller No. 1, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Girjanand Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma ======================================================
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7 25-09-2013 Heard Sri Girijanand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of all the respondents /Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “ Board”). The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order contained in Annexure – 16 vide resolution no. 671 dated 2.9.2006 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 /Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna High Court CWJC No.12331 of 2008 (7) dt.25-09-2013 2/6 whereby, 1% pension of the petitioner was directed to be deducted. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of letter no. 1512 dated 8.10.2007 contained in Annexure -18, whereby, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner, which was preferred against the order of punishment. Short fact of the case is that while the petitioner was functioning as Electrical Executive Engineer, an explanation was sought for on the ground that he had allocated the work of Bill Clerk to one Sri Ajeet Kumar, an unskilled khalasi vide his office order no. 161 dated 2.5.1997 ignoring the importance of work and norms of the Board and due to the said reason the unskilled khalasi defalcated Board’s revenue in a fraudulent manner. He had submitted reply. However, no action was taken. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2000. After his retirement again some explanation was sought for as to why 50% pension be not deducted. It was replied by the petitioner and it was reiterated that the procedure of taking work from unskilled khalasi in the Revenue Section had been continuing since prior to his posting and taking charge. It was further stated that such procedure was prevalent in the offices of the Board all throughout the State. The said practice was followed by his successor. Even after his show cause, punishment order Patna High Court CWJC No.12331 of 2008 (7) dt.25-09-2013 3/6 was imposed and 50% pension was deducted. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 5554 of 2003, which was disposed of on
Decision
29.7.2003 (Annexure – 12 to the writ petition) with consent order that petitioner’s appeal be examined by the Board and order may be passed within a specified time. After the order of this court the appellate authority rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed second writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 71 of 2004. In C.W.J.C. No. 71 of 2004 this court while hearing the writ petition considered that the Board had not brought on record any instruction to show that unsikilled khalasi was not required to be given the responsibility of Bill Clerk. On 14.11.2005 this court quashed the orders and remitted back the matter to the authority concerned. While remitting this court specifically observed as follows:-“It is open to the authority concerned to hold an enquiry or to proceed de novo in the same manner it had proceeded. However, in order to punish the petitioner for the charge, it is required to bring on record that allocation of such work to an unskilled khalasi was adoption of a wrong procedure and the Board had decided to do away the same”. After the matter was remitted back fresh order vide Annexure - 16 to the writ petition has been passed, which is under challenge. Patna High Court CWJC No.12331 of 2008 (7) dt.25-09-2013 4/6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was specific direction to conduct enquiry and also to bring on record the order which restricts for allocation of such work to an unskilled khalasi, the authority concerned had not bothered either to conduct enquiry or de novo enquiry, nor such instruction was brought on record and order of punishment has been passed. This time only modification was done that instead of deducting 50% of pension, it has been reduced to 1%. Fact remains that the order of this court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit, and as such, order impugned is liable to be set aside. He further submits that against the order dated 2.9.2006 (Annexure -16) the petitioner represented before the Chairman of the Board. However, his representation was rejected vide Annexure – 18, that too, without assigning any reason. Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondents/ Board has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He has referred to paragraph no. 16 & 17 of the counter affidavit and stated that order of earlier punishment that was deduction of 50% pension has now been modified and it has been reduced to 1% deduction from pension. He further submits that representation of the petitioner against the order of punishment was examined by the authority concerned and has rightly been rejected vide Patna High Court CWJC No.12331 of 2008 (7) dt.25-09-2013 5/6 Annexure -18 to the writ petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that once this court while setting aside the order of punishment had remitted back the matter to the authority concerned with a specific direction either to conduct enquiry or de novo enquiry and also to bring on record such instruction which prohibits allocation of such work to an unskilled khalasi, the disciplinary authority without bringing on record such instruction or order or without conducting enquiry was not required to pass the impugned order. Of-course, earlier order of punishment i.e. 50% deduction of pension was modified and 1% deduction from pension has been ordered, but fact remains that order impugned is contrary to the direction of this court. Moreover, after retirement of the petitioner the proceeding was to be proceeded in compliance with Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. That has also not been done. In view of the fact that order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 71 of 2004 (Annexure – 14 ) has not been complied with, the order contained in Annexure - 16 is liable to be set aside. Similarly, the order of the appellate authority i.e. Annexure -18 is a non speaking order, and on this ground same is required to be set aside. Accordingly, both the orders i.e. order Patna High Court CWJC No.12331 of 2008 (7) dt.25-09-2013 6/6 contained in Annexures – 16 & 18 are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)