Patna High Court
Daya Nath Singh vs The Bihar State Electricity Board And ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19335 of 2012
======================================================
Daya Nath Singh retired Chief Engineer Son Of Late Ramayan Singh
Resident Of Daya Niwas, Mohanpur, Punaichak, Patna - 23
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board (now holding company) through its
Chairman Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board (Now Holding Company)
Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. Shri A.K. Sinha Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road,
Vidyut Bhawan, Patna .
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sr.Advocate
: Ms. Akrity Aishwarya, Advocate
: Mr.Manish Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Kunden Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-02-2024
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Board.
2. The present writ application has been filed for
quashing the resolution No.1240 dated 03.06.2011 and letter
No.1518 dated 13.07.2012 by which the punishments have been
inflicted against the petitioner, which are as follows:
(I) Reduction of 10% pension.
(II) He will not be paid anything more than subsistence
allowance already paid.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19335 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
(III) He has been censured with an entry in the ACR for
the year 1995-96.
3. Learned counsel cor the petitioner submits that a
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the
Board under Resolution No.2291 dated 23.09.1995. The petitioner
submitted his written statement on 10.11.1995 against the
chargesheet requesting the Inquiry Officer to consider the
contention of the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and
during proceeding the petitioner has also submitted a
supplementary written statement on 08.12.1995 for the
consideration of the Inquiry Officer and in the present case show
cause notice was given to the petitioner disclosing the grounds or
reason before the final impugned resolution awarded the
punishment was passed which is violation of principles of natural
justice and petitioner has been prejudiced to the action of the
respondents. The petitioner was retired from service with effect
from service on 31.01.1996 and he has filed CWJC No.3837 of
1997 challenging the awarded punishment vide Board's Resolution
No.1632 dated 22.06.1996. This Court has been pleased to set
aside the impugned resolution dated 22.06.1996 and directed the
petitioner to file his second show cause reply as he has already
received the enquiry report through counter affidavit, as early as
Patna High Court CWJC No.19335 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
possible in any case within one month from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Court also
directed the Board to pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law. In compliance of order of this Court passed in CWJC
No.3837 of 1997, the petitioner submitted reply of second show
cause vide his petition dated 27.01.2011 challenging the Inquiry
Officer's report and the Inquiry Officer failed to consider the fact
that during his tenure as General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of
the area Electricity Board the revenue of the Board has increased
and during petitioner's period less quantum of electricity units
have been received from the greed in his region, this proves the
ability of petitioner's supervisor capacity and due to his sincere
and diligence effort, the Board was able to collect more revenue as
compared to previous General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer
tenure.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Inquiry Officer did not consider the point raised in the reply to the
second show cause and from a bare perusal of the impugned order
it appears that the respondent authority only cut and paste the
previous order which was under challenge in CWJC No.3837 of
1997. Further submits that the charges were framed against the
petitioner are not substantiated and based on surmises and
Patna High Court CWJC No.19335 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
conjectures and they have not considered any issue raised by the
petitioner and the record of the revenue suggests that the revenue
has been increased during the tenure of the petitioner and there
was no circular or order of the Board which suggests to checking
the transformers. In view of the aforesaid, the orders impugned are
bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
Rules for the Constitution and functioning of the area Board of the
Bihar Electricity Board, he is bringing on record the notification
dated 20.08.1975.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, on the
other hand, submits that from a bare perusal of the earlier
Resolution No.1632 dated 22.06.2022 it is quite apparent that the
disciplinary authority after considering the finding of the Inquiry
Officer alongwith other concerned papers were examined and after
due consideration of enquiry report and written statement of the
petitioner, the deposition of the witnesses and other relevant
papers on record and it was found that the petitioner was guilty of
the lacking of proper supervision and also negligence in
discharging his duties and responsibilities as General Manager-
cum-Chief Engineer of the area Board. Due to previous acts of
omission and commission on the part of the petitioner, the two
consumers in the area namely, M/s Ganesh Foundary and M/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.19335 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
Deepak Electro Casting succeeded in stealing power worth crores
of Rupees and for that the disciplinary authority of Board gave
punishment of deciding to withholding 10% his pension was
ordered to be forfeited apart from other punishments.
6. Learned senior counsel for the Board further submits
that the rules of the Constitution and functioning of the area of
Bihar Electricity Board which was published in the Bihar Gazette
Extra Ordinary No.1211 dated 20.10.1975 and amended up to
November 1976, which reads as follows:-
"Under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules deals
with constitution of Area Boards, their
territorial head jurisdiction and need quarters.
(a) There shall be constituted by Notification
five Area Board for the following area.
(i) Tirhut Area Electricity Board for the entire
administrative area of Tirhut Division.
(ii) Mithila Area Electricity Board for the
entire administrative area of Darbhanga and
Kosi Divisions and those parts of Bhagalpur
and Monghyr Districts, which lies to North of
the Ganges Similarly central Bihar Area
Electricity Board.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19335 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
(iii) South Bihar and Chhota Nagpur Area
Electricity Board.
(iv) Bhagalpur Electricity Area Board.
Rule-8 deals with Finance & Accounts:-
(A) An Area Board shall be responsible for
Financial and Commercial viability of the
Supply and Distribution System in its area for
which proposes:-
(i) It shall maintain Separate account;
(ii) It shall collects its revenue effectively and
shall not allow arrears to accumulate;
(iii) It shall fully account for the energy
supplied to it by the Boards Generation cum
Transmission organization and/or any other
neighbouring Power Systems and other
provisions".
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is admitted position that
without considering the point raised by the petitioner in the reply
to the second show cause, the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 as
well as appellate order dated 13.07.2012 have been passed and the
respondents are failed to establish that the petitioner was guilty of
lacking in proper supervision and also negligence in discharging
Patna High Court CWJC No.19335 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
his duties and responsibilities as General Manager-cum-Chief
Engineer of the area Board. The order dated 30.06.2011 as well as
order dated 13.07.2012 are set aside. The respondents are directed
to pay the all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2024
Transmission Date NA
