Patna High Court
Uma Shankar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief ... on 22 April, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8316 of 2016
======================================================
Uma Shankar Pandey Son of late Ram Das Pandey, Resident of Village -
Rampur Telari, P.S. Shivsagar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram, Presently residing
at Civil Line, Rauza Road, Road No. 1, at and P.O. and P.S. - Sasaram,
(Model Thana), District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna, through its Chairman - cum- Managing Director (hereinafter
referred to as the C.M.D.)
3. The C.M.D., The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Director, (HR and Admin), Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd.,
Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The General Manager, (HR and Admin), South Bihar Power Distribution Co.
Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The General manager, (Revenue), (The Then Financial Controller-I), South
Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The Resident Audit Officer Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
9. The Account Officer, Magadh Electrical Supply Area/Circle, SBPDCL,
Gaya.
10. The Dy. G.M. - cum- Electrical Superintending Engineer, Magadh Electric
Supply Area, Gaya.
11. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, SBPDCL,
Gaya.
12. The Electrical Executive Engineer, electric Supply Division (Urban),
Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sheojee Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA-2
Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA- 2
For the SBPDCL : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
2/17
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2025
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the South
Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter
referred to as SBPDCL).
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
i. For quashing / setting aside
the order of punishment contained in
Resolution No. 1920 dated 30.09.2014
issued under the pen and signature of
respondent no. 6, i.e., the General Manager,
[HR & Admin] South Bihar Power
Distribution Co. Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna, whereby and whereunder, after
superannuation [in the year 2009],
punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs.
13,13,495/= along with interest and
permanent deduction of 50% of pension has
been awarded;
ii. For quashing the resolution
dated 19.06.2006 by which departmental
proceeding has been initiated including the
main charge sheet and the supplementary
charge sheet dated 14.12.2009;
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
3/17
iii. For quashing the resolution
No. 1302 dated 12.09.2013 by which the so-
called second show-cause notice has been
issued to the petitioner;
iv. For quashing / setting aside
the order contained in Letter No. 1635 dated
11.12.2015
issued under the signature of
respondent no. 3, i.e., the C.M.D., Bihar
State Power [ Holding] Co. Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, whereby and
where under the Statutory Appeal preferred
by the petitioner has been rejected and the
order of punishment contained in Resolution
No. 1920 dated 30.09.2014 has been
affirmed;
v. For directing the respondents
to allow all due promotions as well as all the
consequential monetary benefits along with
penal and statutory interest and cost of
litigation;
vi. For grant of any other relief
or reliefs, if the petitioner is found entitled
to.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner joined on the post of Operator at Patratu
Thermal Power Project in the year 1971, and while serving the
erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, now the successor
respondent company, superannuated from the post of Assistant
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
Electrical Engineer in the year 2009, with spotless service career
save and except the present one. Counsel further submits that
the petitioner was posted on the post of Assistant Electrical
Engineer at Jehanabad from 05.06.2002 to 31.10.2005. Then, he
detected a defalcation in the department which was going on
since 1993, and in this regard, he has intimated to his higher
authorities vide his letter No. 662 dated 19.10.2005. Counsel
further submits that in spite of rewarding the petitioner for
unearthing a defalcation, an FIR bearing Jehanabad P.S. Case
No. 284 of 2005, dated 22.10.2005, was lodged by the
respondent in which the petitioner was falsely implicated and on
this ground, the petitioner was suspended vide Office Order No.
1170 dated 03.04.2016, without issuance of any show-cause.
Counsel further submits that a departmental proceeding was
initiated and a charge-sheet was served upon him. In response to
the charge contained in Resolution No. 525 dated 19.06.2006,
the petitioner submitted his written statement in his defense
before the Inquiry Officer and also filed a representation on
29.09.2008, enclosing a list of documents. While during the
enquiry proceedings, findings of the Inquiry Officer were
awaited, a supplementary charge-sheet was served upon the
petitioner on 14.12.2009.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that thereafter, the petitioner submitted a specific
written statement on 07.10.2010, in defense against each of the
allegations made in the supplementary charge-sheet. After the
enquiry was conducted, the Inquiry Officer found the charge not
proved against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the
criminal case which had been lodged, in which the petitioner
was also made an accused, namely, Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 284
of 2005, has also been closed against the petitioner. After
investigation, the petitioner was found innocent, and a final
form was submitted by the police. The said final form was
accepted by the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jehanabad, and
the petitioner was discharged vide order dated 04.11.2009.
Counsel further submits that the Inquiry Officer, in his inquiry
report dated 04.07.2012, found no involvement or connivance of
the petitioner in the alleged defalcation committed in the
Electric Supply Subdivision, Jehanabad (Urban). Learned
senior counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority differed
with the findings of the inquiry report and issued a notice vide
Memo No. 1303 dated 12.09.2013, serving a show-cause notice
upon the petitioner with a direction to submit his reply as to why
not punishment be awarded against him by treating the charges
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
to be proved on five new grounds. Learned senior counsel
further submits that the issuance of the show-cause notice on the
basis of new points is a gross violation of the CCA Rules, 2005,
as in the said points of difference, new charges have been shown
which had never been placed at any level in the earlier charge
memo or in the supplementary charge memo. Counsel further
submits that upon receiving the disagreement memo, the
petitioner filed his detailed show-cause reply on 15.11.2013, but
none of his points were considered by the Disciplinary
Authority, and passed a punishment order vide Resolution No.
1920 dated 30.09.2014, issued by respondent No. 6, i.e., the
General Manager [HR & Admin], South Bihar Power
Distribution Company Limited. In the said order, recovery of an
amount of Rs. 13,13,495/- along with interest was directed. A
further order was made for permanent deduction of 50 per cent
of the petitioner's pension, which shall be realized from the
petitioner. Counsel further submits that being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the order of the disciplinary proceeding dated
30.09.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
C.M.D., Bihar State Power [Holding] Company Limited, Patna,
and submitted all his points, but the appeal was also rejected,
without taking into consideration that in charge memo only
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
allegation is required not the finding.
5. Learned senior counsel further submits that after
the rejection of the same, the petitioner challenged both the
orders before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing the present
writ petition. Counsel, upon placing the present writ, submits
that there are gross violations of established rules as well as
violations of the principles of natural justice in conduction of
the present disciplinary proceeding and in passing orders by
both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority
against the petitioner. Counsel specifically mentions that a
charge memo was issued firstly to the petitioner, and
subsequently, before the Inquiry Officer, a supplementary
charge memo, annexed as Annexure-6, was also issued, in
which a total of 18 supplementary charges were added. Counsel
further submits that upon bare reading of the supplementary
charge-sheet, it becomes crystal clear that it is basically not a
charge memo, due to the reason that at the end of every charge
memo, there is a finding that the petitioner is responsible for the
charge, which is in gross violation of the Bihar Government
Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules, 2005). Counsel further
submits that the Inquiry Officer, in his inquiry, clearly found
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
that there was no involvement of the petitioner and there is no
basis for the same, save and except an observation was made
that there was negligence in revenue work. Counsel further
submits that negligence is something entirely different from
misconduct. He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority
differs from the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and in the
difference he again violated the Rules laid down under Rule
17(18) of the CCA Rules, 2005, and differing from the inquiry
report he has made fresh charges in his show-cause / memo of
difference. Counsel submits that, as per the rules, when new
charges have been alleged in difference memo then a further
inquiry has to be held. However, in the present case, no such
further inquiry was directed to be held.
6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has
submitted a second show-cause, explaining each and every point
on the point of difference. Counsel further submits that Rule
18(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005 clearly indicates that the
Disciplinary Authority, if it disagrees with the findings of the
inquiring authority on any article of charge, records its reason
for such disagreement and records its own finding on such
charge, if the evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose.
Counsel further submits that in the present case, there is no
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
finding, no reason for such disagreement on any of the articles
of charge separately, as to why the enquiry report was not
accepted. Counsel further submits that the Disciplinary
Authority shall have to pass order only after considering the
representation or submissions of the delinquent and shall have
to reach to its finding all of the charges. However, in the present
case, there is not a whisper regarding the consideration of the
points raised by the delinquent petitioner in his second show-
cause, nor there is any finding on any of the articles of charge in
the final order. Counsel submits on what basis the order of
realization of Rs. 13,13,495/- was come has not been
mentioned. Counsel further submits that what is the basis for the
deduction of 50 per cent pension has also not been mentioned.
Counsel also submits that in passing the final order by the
Disciplinary Authority, there is a gross violation of the CCA
Rules, 2005.
7. Counsel further relies on a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lav Nigam v. Chairman &
Md. ITI Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440, wherein
it was held that it is only after hearing the appellant that the
disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of
guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
with a notice relating. to the punishment proposed. Counsel
submits that here in the present case, no such notice regarding
the proposed punishment has been served on the petitioner. On
this ground, counsel submits that the impugned order is bad in
law. He further submits that when the original proceeding is
itself bad in law due to the reason of non-fulfillment of the CCA
Rules, 2005, the appellate order is also not sustainable in the
eyes of law. In the second show-cause, the defence taken by the
petitioner was not considered at all and it is due to this reason
the proceeding itself is bad in law and the Appellate Authority
has not considered the single point and rejected the claim of the
petitioner. Therefore, he submits that both the original order
dated 13.09.2014 annexed as Annexure-12 and the final order
dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority be set aside.
8. Learned senior counsel further relies on another
judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of The State of
Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Narmadeshwar
Sharma & Anr., reported in (2017) 1 PLJR 252, wherein it was
held that an order of withholding of pension to the extent of 50
per cent, and that too for life, cannot be lightly interfered with,
that too in the evening of life of an employee. Withholding of
pension for life is harsh irrespective of the extent of financial
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
loss suffered by the State even on the proved misconduct against
an employee. Counsel submits that in the present case, the
situation is entirely different, as the alleged misconduct was not
approved by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, in
its disagreement memo, has come with different charges, and for
those charges no inquiry was conducted. Counsel further
submits that in the second show-cause, the defense taken by the
petitioner was not considered at all and it is due to this reason
the proceeding itself is bad in law. The Appellate Authority has
also not considered the single point and rejected the claim of the
petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the order contained in
Resolution No. 1920, dated 30.09.2014, annexed as Annexure-
12 and order contained in Letter No. 1635, dated 11.12.2015
passed by the Appellate Authority annexed as Annexure- 14 be
set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the SBPDCL, on the other
hand, submits that in the counter affidavit, the contentions of the
writ petitioner have been opposed. It has been submitted that,
with a view to take precaution, a Four-Men Committee was
constituted, which submitted a report in which the total loss was
calculated. Only thereafter the amount of Rs. 13,13,495/- has
been ascertained. Counsel further submits that the conclusion
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
reached by the Disciplinary Authority regarding the realization
of the said amount is not arbitrary but is based on the findings of
the Four-Men Committee report. Counsel further submits that
the charge memo was duly issued, and the issuance of the
supplementary charge memo is within the domain of law and it
has been rightly issued. Counsel further submits that although
the Inquiry Officer reached on a certain conclusion but in law,
the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to follow and accept the
inquiry report, Therefore, the disagreement was made
completely in accordance with the law. Hence it is submitted
that, there is no violation of any procedure in the present case.
Counsel further submits that, upon considering of the show-
cause, the Disciplinary Authority has passed order and all the
points raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority
were meticulously examined, and a reasoned order was passed.
In this background, he submits that the orders passed by both
the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are
sustainable in the eyes of law, and the present writ petition is fit
to be dismissed.
10. Upon hearing the arguments made by both
counsel, and particularly upon going through the supplementary
charge memo, this Court has two opinion. Firstly, the issuance
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
of the supplementary charge memo is well within the domain of
the Disciplinary Authority. However, upon going through the
contents of the said charge memo, this Court is surprised as to
whether it is a charge memo or a finding or it is a result, because
in the charge memo, charge is alleged, but here, in the
supplementary charge memo, the Disciplinary Authority reached
on the finding and held that the petitioner is responsible and
guilty for the charges, which shows the bias mind of the
Disciplinary Authority at the time of framing the supplementary
charge memo.
11. This Court is also surprised upon going through
the disagreement memo, wherein the Disciplinary Authority has
indicated a different type of allegation which is absolutely
differs from the original and supplementary charge memo. It is
within the powers of the Disciplinary Authority to point such
things in the disagreement memo, but when any new allegation,
in the form of charge, comes afresh then he supposed to do or
direct for a fresh enquiry for reaching on the conclusion on the
fresh allegations. It also transpires to this Court, upon going
through the inquiry report, that the Inquiry Officer, on the one
hand, reached on the conclusion that there was no involvement
of the petitioner in the alleged defalcation, but on the other
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
hand, also reached on the conclusion that there was negligence
on the part of the petitioner in revenue work. This is also not
acceptable to this Court, because in the charge memo, this
allegation was not there and the inquiry officer must have to
restrain himself from reaching on new type of conclusion, which
is not in the charge memo particularly when that negligence is
not a misconduct. It is further surprising to this Court that,
although the petitioner, in his second show-cause, has answered
all the points, which has been raised in the disagreement memo,
but none of those points have been discussed in the final order
which is another violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005,
as the Disciplinary Authority must have to consider all the
points and then reach on his separate finding but he has not
considered a single point, answered by the petitioner, at all.
12. As to the contention of SBPDCL that the
conclusion regarding the amount of Rs. 13,13,495/- was based
on the report of the Four-Men Committee, but from the record,
it transpires that on no occasion, in the entire departmental
proceeding, the said Four Men Committee report was placed
before Inquiry Officer, delinquent petitioner or before
presenting officer and when a document which was never been
tested in the disciplinary proceeding then the Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
Authority cannot reach on the conclusion and pass punishment
on the basis of that report. The notice for proposed punishment
has also not been issued. In this regard, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lav Nigam
(Supra) particularly paragraph 10 , is extremely relevant and is
quoted hereunder:--
10. The conclusion of the High
Court was contrary to the consistent view
taken by this Court that in case the
disciplinary authority differs with the view
taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to
give a notice setting out his tentative
conclusions to the appellant. It is only after
hearing the appellant that the disciplinary
authority would at all arrive at a final
finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee
would again have to be served with a notice
relating. to the punishment proposed.
13. The judgment of The State of Bihar through
the Chief Secretary & Ors. (Supra) is also relevant whose
paragraph 10 is reproduced below:-
10. Since the allegation against
the Respondent No. 1 was of causing loss
along with other officials, the extent of loss
suffered is a relevant consideration. before
quantifying the punishment. A perusal of the
order of punishment does not show that any
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
such consideration has been adopted while
ordering for withholding of pension to the
extent of 50 per cent and that too for life. A
Government servant earns pension on
account of his services rendered to the State
for large number of years. The benefit of
such services cannot be lightly interfered
with, that too in the evening of life of an
employee. Withholding of pension for life is
harsh irrespective of the extent of financial
loss suffered by the State even on the proved
misconduct against an employee. Such
punishment is shockingly disproportionate to
a former employee. Therefore, we find that
the order of punishment is too harsh which
cannot be sustained.
14. After the discussions made above, and upon
going through the relevant records, it becomes crystal clear that
there have been gross violations of a series of provisions under
the CCA Rules, 2005, in the conduct of the departmental
proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court
hereby sets aside the order contained in Resolution No. 1920,
dated 30.09.2014, passed by the respondent No. 6 (Annexure-
12) and the order contained in Letter No. 1635, dated
11.12.2015, passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure- 14).
15. Accordingly, with this direction, the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.8316 of 2016 dt.22-04-2025
writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner is entitled for the
benefits in accordance with law.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
