KASHINATH CHAKRABORTY Vs. W.B.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application had been preferred assailing the Charge Sheet dated 19.05.2003, the enquiry report dated 27th December, 2003, the Second Show-cause Notice dated 28th May, 2004, the Final Order of Punishment dated 27th August, 2004, the Appellate Authority Order dated 12th July, 2005 and the Order dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Reviewing Authority.

(2.) In the writ application, the petitioner had, inter alia, averred that he is an employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as W.B.S.E.B.) and on 14.11.2002 he was posted as the Station Manager of Sadhanpur Group Electricity Supply (hereinafter referred to as W.B.S.E.B.). Prior to such joining the post of Station Manager, an application for new service connection was made by one Sk. Nazrul Islam on 23.04.2002 and accordingly, a direction was issued by the erstwhile Station Superintendent to Sri Sukumar Nag, Linesman for physical verification of the premises of the said consumer and after inspection a report was filed on 18th July, 2002, stating inter alia that the said consumer unauthorisedly extended the height of a 3 phases 4 wire over head low tension lines (hereinafter referred to as the said L.T. Lines) which crossed over his premises and that for shifting such unauthorized line, one pole was required to be installed but in spite of the said report no steps were taken by the then Superintendent to remove the unauthorized line or to effect electricity connection in the premises of the consumer namely, Sk. Nazrul Islam. Aggrieved by such inaction the said Sk. Nazrul Islam made a representative to the petitioner on 16th December, 2002 and the petitioner accordingly directed one Mr. Sukumar Nag, Linesman to conduct further inspection and pursuant thereto a report was filed on 21st December, 2002 reiterating the earlier report dated 18.07.2002 and the petitioner accordingly prepared an estimate of Rs.14,515/- for shifting the over head low tension line and forwarded the same to the competent authority for approval but such approval was not received and that thereafter Sk. Nazrul Islam prayed for immediate electrical connection as his daughter-in-law was suffering from various ailments and he also undertook to bear the cost of shifting of the over head L.T. Line crossing his building and that as there was no difficulty in effecting service connection to Sk. Nazrul Islam from the nearest service pole under Burdwan Electricity Supply, Sector-I, such connection was effected. Surprisingly, thereafter, the respondent no.2 vide memorandum dated 19th May, 2003 issued a Charge Sheet to which the petitioner replied on 30th June, 2003 and thereafter the respondent no.6 was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide memorandum dated 19th July, 2003 and upon conducting an enquiry the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27th December, 2003 and the petitioner replied to the same on 12.03.2004 and thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued on 28th May, 2004 to which the petitioner replied on 10th July, 2004 and ultimately, thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued a final order of punishment vide memorandum dated 27.08.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal and the same was disposed of reducing the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and aggrieved by the said Appellate Authority order dated 12th July, 2005, the petitioner applied for review of the order of punishment before the Standing Appellate Committee II on 27.08.2005 and vide memorandum dated 24.01.2006 the petitioner was informed that the Standing Appellate Committee II was of the opinion that there was nothing new in his second appeal petition on the basis of which the matter could be reviewed further.

(3.) Mr. Dutta, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Charge Sheet was issued by the respondent no.2 with a closed mind and that from the language of the Charge Sheet it appeared that the Disciplinary Authority had drawn up a positive conclusion against the petitioner and thereafter started disciplinary proceedings against him and in support of such submission, Mr. Dutta referred to the penultimate paragraph of the Charge Sheet wherein the Disciplinary authority had observed that the petitioner had motivatedly effected service connection without officially shifting the unauthorisedly heightened distribution line and overruling the objection raised by the Linesman and that thereby the petitioner only saved the additional cost of officially shifting the distribution line in favour of Sk. Nazrul Islam for his personal gain.