B PDAH Vs. MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant writ petitioner filed a writ petition being W. P. (C) No. 212 (SH) of 1999 challenging the order of suspension dated 7.7.1995 issued by the Chairman, Meghalaya State Electricity Board as well as the departmental proceeding initiated by the said authority against him including the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer and the penalty imposed by the authority on the petitioner on the basis of such proceeding. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 19.2.2004 and hence the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant writ petitioner who at the relevant point of time was serving as the Chief Engineer (Electrical) under the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (for short the MeSEB), was placed under suspension vide order dated 7.7.1995 issued by the Chairman of MeSEB and thereafter was issued with a charge sheet dated 25.9.1995 by the said authority asking him to show cause as to why the disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for causing considerable loss to the Board by giving undue advantage to the Jaintia Cements Limited at the cost of the Board, for manipulating deposit work cost estimate to provide undue benefit of about fifty lacs to the said firm by misusing his authority, for dishonesty, fraudulent and willful dereliction of duty resulting in considerable loss to the Board as well as deprivation of the legitimate benefits to the 35 villages covered by the scheme who would have received it from the developmental scheme and for giving undue advantage to the said company by misusing of his official authority in pursuance of the objective of his vested interest for the willful misutilization of REC loan by providing illegitimate and illegal benefit to the Jaintia Cements Limited, which should have legitimately gone to the 35 villages covered by the REC scheme and submission of false and fabricated quarterly physical achievement reports under his seal and signature to the REC regarding the number of villages covered, construction of 11 K.V. spur lines and also for providing power only and exclusively to the said firm and deliberately avoiding taking any steps to connect the villages covered by REC scheme so that the 33 K.V. line remain dedicated solely for meeting the power requirements of the said firm. The management upon receipt of the show cause and having not satisfied with the same decided to hold a disciplinary proceeding against him and accordingly inquiry officer was appointed. Meanwhile, the petitioner appellant was put under suspension vide order dated 7.7.2005 issued by the Chairman of MeSEB. The order of suspension as well as the issuance of charge sheet by the Chairman was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition being C.R. No. 5477/95(CR-113 SH of 1996), which was though allowed by a Single Judge of this court vide judgment and order dated 19.9.96, a division bench of this court in Writ Appeal No. 516 of 1996 preferred by the MeSEB declared the decision of the learned Single Judge regarding the initiation of the departmental proceeding by issuing the charge sheet as nonest and disposed of the same with the observation that Che MeSEB may pass appropriate order in Che light of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report holding that the charge Nos. 5, 7, 10 against the appellant were duly proved and the charge Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 8 were partially proved. The Chairman MeSEB, thereafter upon consideration of the records of the disciplinary proceeding, the representation made by the appellant against inquiry report as well as the finding recorded by the inquiry officer in his report passed the order dated 31.8.99 imposing the punishment of recovery of the amount of leave encashment under regulation 10 (v) of the ASEB (General Service) Regulations, 1960 as adopted by the MeSEB and permanently reducing the pension to 25% under Rule 8 (1) (b) of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules as adopted by the board.

(3.) We have heard Mr. B. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also Mr. K. S. Kynjing, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, MeSEB.