IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-3019-2018 Mohinder Partap v. Chairman & Managing Director PSPCL and Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-3019-2018 Mohinder Partap Singh Dhillon . . . . Pe**oner Vs. Chairman & Managing Director PSPCL and Others . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 10.01.2025 Pronounced on: 22.01.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ja#nderpal Singh, Advocate for the pe##oner. Ms. Malvika Singh, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** Pe##oner was posted as Assistant Execu#ve Engineer at City Pa- tran during 22.10.2001 to 09.08.2002 at Opera#ons City, Sub Division Patran. During this period, two subordinate employees of the pe##oner namely Sh. Arvind Kumar, Junior Engineer and Sh. Dharampal, Junior Engineer were held li- able for irregulari#es in discharging their du#es, as they did not deposit the in- spec#on fees to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab for the new connec#on/ improvement connec#on of the transformers as per the policy of the Govern- ment of Punjab. As per procedure, the requisite fees was required to be de- posited with Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab and it is a7er the inspec#on re- port of the Chief Electrical Inspector that JEs concerned were authorized to en- ergize the transformers. However the abovesaid concerned JEs of the depart- ment installed new connec#ons of transformers without deposi#ng the challan NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3019-2018 fees and without taking permission from the Chief Electrical Inspector. When the irregulari#es rela#ng to the installa#on of the new connec#ons of trans- formers came forth, it was found that total 37 unauthorized transformers were connected and the electricity was resumed without taking permission from the higher authori#es and without paying the inspec#on fee. 2. Accordingly Sh. Arvind Kumar, JE was penalised and ordered to pay penalty of ₹5,94,190/-; whereas Sh. Dharampal, JE was penalized to pay penalty of ₹6,33,860/- a7er finaliza#on of the departmental proceedings against them. Against the abovesaid finaliza#on of the departmental proceedings, Arvind Ku- mar, JE preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who upheld the penalty imposed upon him but restricted it to the recovery of ₹2,04,650/- and further directed to recover the remaining amount from the concerned responsi- ble officer who was at fault, a7er issuing a show cause no#ce. Separate appeal filed by other JE Dharampal was dismissed and the amount of ₹6,33,860/- was ordered to be recovered from him as penalty and the remaining amount was di- rected to be recovered from the Incharge Officer of Sub Division. 3. Pursuant to the abovesaid, pe##oner, who was in charge Sub-divi- sion Patran, was served show cause no#ce on 03.09.2015 contempla#ng imposi- #on of minor penalty as per Rule5 (i) to (iv) of The Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regula#ons, 1971. Pe##oners submiHed reply to the show cause no#ce as Annexure P-5 and a7er affording an opportu- nity of hearing, the Director Commercial came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to recover the amount from the pe##oner at this belated stage. His appeal was accordingly recommended to be considered and decided. 4. However the joint Secretary/Technical-IV PSPCL Pa#ala held the pe##oner responsible to pay the penalty amount by passing impugned order dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure P-7). The appeal filed by the pe##oner was dis- missed vide order dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure P-12). 5. The abovesaid orders Annexures P-7 and P-12 are alleged by the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 CWP-3019-2018 pe##oner to be illegal and in viola#on of law, mainly on the ground of delay, inasmuch as the allega#ons pertain to the year 2001-02, whereas the show cause no#ce was served upon the pe##oner on 03.09.2015. It is also contended that dissen#ng note made by the Director Commercial has been ignored by the punishing authority. Further the authori#es have not given any finding regarding the alleged pecuniary loss, which is not aHributable to the conduct of the pe#- #oner in any manner. As such, pe##oner has prayed for seKng aside orders An- nexures P-7 and P-12 by issuing appropriate writ. 6. The respondents in their reply have jus#fied their ac#on and de- fended the impugned orders. 7. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that at the relevant #me i.e. from 22.10.2001 to 09.08.2002, pe##oner was AEE Opera#ons, Incharge at Sub-Division City Patran, when Arvind Kumar, JE and Dharampal JE were penalised by the respondents. Both of them were working under the pe##oner. As per reply of respondents, Arvind Kumar, JE made 18 transformers opera#onal in direct contraven#on of the Rule 63 and 7(2) of Electricity Rules, 1956 without obtaining wriHen ap- proval and without deposi#ng the inspec#on fee with the Chief Electrical In- spector, due to which the respondent corpora#on had to pay penalty of ₹3,41,940/- with the Chief Electrical Inspector. Out of this amount ₹1,12,498/- has been directed to be recovered from the pe##oner by way of the impugned orders. Similarly, JE Dharampal working under the pe##oner had made 18 num- bers of transformers opera#onal in contraven#on of the aforesaid rules without obtaining wriHen approval and without deposi#ng the fees with the Chief Elec- trical Inspector, due to which the respondent corpora#on had to suffer a loss of ₹3,64,930/- which was paid by the respondent corpora#on as a fine to the Chief Electrical Inspector and out of this amount, an amount of ₹1,82,465/- has been directed to be recovered from the pe##oner on account of irregularity and NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 5 CWP-3019-2018 lapses on his part. 9. The respondents have jus#fied their ac#on for recovering the total amount of ₹2,94,963/- from the pe##oner, inasmuch the irregularity and lapses had taken place during his tenure as AEE Incharge under Opera#on of Sub-Divi- sion Patran, inasmuch as pe##oner was negligent in ensuring that transformers are made opera#onal in compliance with the provisions of law. He was found to be directly responsible for causing the financial loss to the respondent corpora- #on, as has been found by the Board of Directors in its mee#ng held on 30.11.2017. 10. The services of the pe##oner are governed by Punjab State Elec- tricity Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regula#ons, 1971. Recovery of loss suffered by the respondent, falls within the scope of minor penalty as per Regu- la#on 5. If the minor penalty is proposed to be imposed, the show cause no#ce is required to be served regarding the proposal to take ac#on against the em- ployee as per Regula#on 10. 11. In the present case, it is not disputed by the pe##oner that show cause no#ce was given to him and it is only a7er providing him personal hearing that the impugned orders were passed. 12. Based upon the reply Annexure P-5 of the pe##oner to the show cause no#ce, it has been rightly found by the respondents that as per the own
Legal Reasoning
case of the pe##oner, he had asked Arvind Kumar JE and Mr. Dharampal, JE re- garding the non-obtaining of approval and payment of inspec#on fees and he was assured that these would be provided to him in due course but before he could be given the receipts of the payments of inspec#on fee, the pe##oner claimed that he was transferred. It has been rightly observed that in the ab- sence of any wriHen communica#on/no#ng on the part of the pe##oner asking Mr. Arvind Kumar JE and Mr. Dharampal JE regarding the approval and payment of inspec#on fee in order to assure accountability, the version of the pe##oner is not reliable. Being Incharge at the sta#on, it was for the pe##oner to ensure NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 CWP-3019-2018 that payment of inspec#on fee was made by the JEs concerned before the trans- formers were made opera#onal. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ac#on of the respon- dents in imposing part of the penalty upon the pe##oner cannot be said to be unjus#fied. 14. As such, this Court does not find any merit in the present pe##on so as to set aside the impugned orders. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 22.01.2025 Nee#ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5