The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Chandra Kant Rai W.P.(S) No. 1654 of 2005 ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1.Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Secretary Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2.Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3.General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Board, Deoghar 4.Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Secretary Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna, Bihar 5.Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna (Bihar) 6.Joint Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna (Bihar) 7.Shri R. N. Rai, Deputy Director Personal Cum Enquiry Officer, B.S.E.B., Vidyut Bhawan Baily Road, Patna (Bihar) ………. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate Mrs. Sandhya Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp-JSEB For the Resp.-BSEB : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate ---------- 18/ 07.03.2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for quashing the office order No. 1687 dated 10.05.2002 (Annexure-1) and appellate order dated 17.11.2003 issued under Office Order No. 2511 (Annexure-9), by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services in most arbitrary and illegal manner, in pursuance to a regular department proceeding. 3. Petitioner was a permanent employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board who performed 35 years of service in the Board having due date of retirement on 31.01.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that while on deputation in Shravani Mela at Deoghar in the year 2000, a memo of charge was issued vide office order No.5933 dated 18.10.2000 and thereafter, a proceeding was initiated on the complaint of one Yogendra Prasad Ambastha, the then -2- Additional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Rajabag, Deoghar. Without making any preliminary enquiry and without issuance of any show cause notice, the proceeding was initiated and the petitioner submitted his reply refuting all the charges and the allegation of the misconduct. It was only the complainant who confirmed the allegation and neither any witnesses was examined nor any evidence was laid down for proving the charges. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no loss to the State Exchequer. The Enquiry Officer, without any evidences, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and on that basis, the petitioner was dismissed from services by the impugned order of the disciplinary authority dated 10.05.2002. The said punishment order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated17.11.2003. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel representing the petitioner, has argued that the impugned orders are mechanical, cryptic and without any basis. The same have been issued on the perverse enquiry report. Learned counsel has further argued that the charges of misconduct has not at all been proved by the enquiry officer, rather what has been proved is that the petitioner did not vacate the quarter and did not join the new place of posting after transfer. The learned counsel argued that even if it is accepted that the charges has been proved in the departmental proceeding, the allegations are not as grave to warrant or attract the major punishment like order of dismissal and the same is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that the matter be remitted back to the respondent-Authorities since the petitioner has worked for 35 long years and was having an unblemished career, which was not taken into consideration by the respondents while passing the impugned orders. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel representing the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board, emphatically argues that the order of punishment has been affirmed up to the appellate stage. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner has been held -3- guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer and the same requires no interference by this Court. Justifying the impugned orders, learned counsel submits that the same do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 6. Be that as it may, from perusal of the documents brought
Decision
on record and the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavits, it appears that the impugned order of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate. The same requires interference by this Court. The charges are not as grave which may warrant order of dismissal. The respondents ought not to have passed the order in mechanical manner. The long services of the petitioner, who has worked for 35 years, were never taken into consideration. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur versus Union of India and Ors., reported in 1987 (4) SCC 611, this Court interfered with the punishment imposed by a Court Martial on the ground that it was strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of offence on the following reasons:- “19. This takes us to the last question as to whether the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. The principles relating to judicial review of punishment imposed, as a part of the decision making process by Court Martial, have been explained, in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India - 1987 (4) SCC 611, where this Court interfered with the punishment imposed by a court martial on the ground that it was strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of offence on the following reasoning : "Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision making process". The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court-Martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court-Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review."” -4- 8. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin Bank and Anr. versus Rajendra Singh, reported in 2013 (12) SCC 372, has held that “As it is clear from the above that the judicial review of the quantum of punishment is available with a very limited scope. The Court would frown upon only when the penalty imposed appears to be so disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that it is shocking to the conscience of the Court. Even, in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority with a direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court, by itself, cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.” 9. On the conspectus of facts of the case, it appears that the impugned order of punishment does not commensurate with the misconduct. Therefore, on the doctrine of proportionality, the impugned orders at Annexures- 1 and 9 warrant interference by this Court. 10. In normal course, this Court would have set aside the impugned order of punishment and referred the matter back for consideration and imposition of a lesser punishment but having regard to the fact that matter is more than 22 years old and no purpose would be served by referring the matter back to the respondent-Authorities, this Court is of the view that on the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served if the punishment of dismissal is substituted by any punishment, other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. 11. As a sequitur of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned orders issued under Office Order No. 1687 dated 10.05.2002 (Annexure-1) and Office Order No. 2511 dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure-9) are hereby quashed and set aside. 12. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the petitioner may be extended the benefits -5- for which he is entitled for, in accordance with law, including the pensionary benefits, which have accrued to him after quashment of the punishment orders. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. 14. Pending I.A., if any, shall also stand closed. Rohit/ (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)