Patna High Court
Jindalal Mahto vs The Bihar State Electricity Board And ... on 24 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2504 of 2019
======================================================
Jindalal Mahto, son of Late Deni Mahto, resident of Village- Madhopur, P.O.
and P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board now Bihar State Power, holding company
limited Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, through its Chairman
2. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bihar State Electricity Board, now
Bihar State Power, holding company limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,
Patna.
3. The General Manager, Human Resources (Administration) South Bihar
Power Distribution Company Limited, Bihar State Electricity Board, now
Bihar State Power, holding company limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,
Patna.
4. The Additional Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, now Bihar State
Power, holding company limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Renu Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-03-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as
contained in Resolution no.925 dated 13.09.2017 issued under
the signature of respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has
been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of two annual
increments with non-cumulative effect and further the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.2504 of 2019 dt.24-03-2025
2/7
would get nothing except the subsistence allowance for the
period of suspension from 26.04.2013 to 15.08.2013.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner, adverting to the facts enumerated in
the writ petition has contended that the petitioner was duly
appointed on the post of Junior Electrical Engineer in the year
1984 and on being found eligible, he was promoted to the post
of Assistant Electrical Engineer in the year 1997.
4. While the petitioner was posted as Assistant
Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, Dhaka, in the meanwhile,
on account of certain imputation of disobedience and
misconduct, he was put under suspension vide Resolution no. 69
dated 26.04.2013 in contemplation of a departmental
proceedings, which was initiated vide Memo No.90 dated
12.06.2013
. Altogether eight charges were framed against the
petitioner. In response to the charges, the petitioner filed a
detailed statement of defence with a prayer to exonerate him.
The Enquiry Officer after completing the enquiry has submitted
his enquiry report as contained in letter no. 131 dated
23.06.2016. The charges from 1 to 6 and 8 stood proved against
the petitioner. So far charge no.7 is concerned, the same has
been partially proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, second
Patna High Court CWJC No.2504 of 2019 dt.24-03-2025
show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, which was
also responded in details with a request to exonerate him from
the charges. However, the response of the petitioner did not find
favour and finally the impugned order as contained in
Resolution no.925 dated 13.09.2017 came to be passed, which is
put to challenge before this Court.
5. While assailing the impugned order, Mr. Mishra,
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court
through the order(s) and submitted that apart from the order is
wholly cryptic and no reason has been assigned, as to why the
second show-cause affidavit filed by the petitioner did not find
favour; the punishment is only based upon the enquiry report.
The disciplinary authority, despite being under obligation to deal
with second show-cause has only stated that the second show-
cause offered by the petitioner was reviewed but it did not find
favour and accorded the punishment of withholding of two
increments with non-cumulative effect and further except
subsistence allowance, nothing shall be payable for the period
during suspension. Learned Senior Advocate, thus urged that
any administrative or quasi judicial order must be supported by
reason. Placing reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in
the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another v.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2504 of 2019 dt.24-03-2025
Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others [(2010) 9 SCC 496], it
is contended that a quasi judicial authority must record reasons
in support of its conclusions as the recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. The
reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct; a pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not
to be equated with a valid decision making process. Moreover, if
an order lacks reason, it cannot be tested by the appellate
authority.
6. It is further argued that apart from the aforesaid
ground(s), the order impugned is also bad in the eyes of law,
inasmuch as while imposing the punishment that the petitioner
shall not get anything for the period of suspension save and
except subsistence allowance, the disciplinary authority was
required to give separate show-cause notice to the delinquent in
terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code but the same has been given a
complete go by in the matter in hand. To support the aforesaid
contention, reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by
the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar [2006 (4) PLJR 514].
7. Per contra, Ms. Renu Jha, learned Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.2504 of 2019 dt.24-03-2025
representing the North Bihar Power Distribution Company
Limited (NBPDCL) has confronted the afore-noted submissions
and contended that the petitioner has been accorded ample
opportunity in the departmental proceedings and, in fact, at no
point of time, any grievance has been raised regarding fair
process adopted by the respondent-NBPDCL; moreover, the
punishment imposed is a minor punishment and if the petitioner
has had really any grievance, he may prefer appeal before the
competent authority. The second show-cause filed by the
petitioner was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and
on being found charges proved in the enquiry, the order
impugned has been passed. It is also contended that once the
charges have been proved during the course of enquiry, no
elaborate order is required to be passed by the disciplinary
authority.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds
substance in the writ petition for the reasons assigned
hereinbelow.
9. Trite it is that the legality and correctness of a
decision is to be tested on the basis of the reason disclosed in
the order and not otherwise. Prima facie, from the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.2504 of 2019 dt.24-03-2025
order, it appears that the disciplinary authority failed to
discharge his duty when it is not disclosed as to why the second
show-cause explanation filed by the petitioner did not find
favour. There is no deliberation and discussion with respect to
the grounds taken in the show-cause, save and except it has been
disclosed that after thorough examination; the second show-
cause filed by the petitioner did not find favour. It would be
worth to remind that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and Others [AIR 1978 SC 85]
ruled that "when a statutory functionary makes an order based
on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the
shape of affidavit or otherwise".
10. This Court also finds that before inflicting the
punishment that the petitioner shall not get anything for the
period of suspension save and except subsistence allowance, it
was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to give a fresh
show-cause on this point in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. This
Court has been reminded with the mandate of different Benches'
of this Court, wherein the Court has held that non-observance of
the provision of Rule 97(3) of the Code would amount to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2504 of 2019 dt.24-03-2025
violation of the principles of natural justice [vide Mahabir
Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others, 1988 0 PLJR 82,
Pramod Kumar v. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank
and Others, 2003(4) PLJR 68 and Dinesh Prasad (supra)].
11. On both the counts, this Court finds the impugned
order as contained in Resolution no.925 dated 13.09.2017
suffers from manifest illegality and, as such, it stands quashed
and cancelled. Normally, in the case in hand this Court may
relegate the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh
reasoned and speaking order but this Court has been informed
that during the interregnum period, the petitioner has already
superannuated, hence, no purpose would be served in relegating
the matter.
12. The writ petition stands allowed; the
consequences shall follow.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26-03-2025
Transmission Date
