AMBERLIGHT LYNGDOH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him culminating in the order of punishment dated 4. 4. 2000 issued by the Chairman of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board and the appellate order dated 22. 11. 2002 and for payment of salary arrears and thereafter to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from the date on which the first of his juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and to fix his seniority accordingly in the post of Executive Engineer.

(2.) THIS is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The facts and circumstances leading to the filling of this writ petition may be briefly noted at the very outset. The petitioner is a graduate in Civil Engineering and was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer by the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") which he joined in May, 1986 whereupon he was posted as Assistant Engineer attached to Civil Division No. 4 of stage IV Project having its Headquarters near Zero Point, Kyrdemkulai, East Khasi Hills District. While working under Civil Division No. 4 of stage IV Project, a disciplinary proceeding was launched against the petitioner by the Board on the following charges :

(3.) THIS Court by the Judgment and Order dated 9. 9. 1997 allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of dismissal and directed the respondents Board to re-instate the petitioner to his post. This Court also gave liberty to the respondents-Board to hold fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing of the report of the Inquiry Officer in accordance with law, if so advised. This Court recorded the findings that the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the Inquiry Report in the year 1992 whereas the penalty of dismissal was already imposed by the former chairman of the Board on 21. 7. 1990 and that the petitioner was accordingly prevented from making effective reply against the Inquiry Report before issuing the order of dismissal, which was against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. The respondents Board ultimately reinstated the petitioner to his former post but proceeded to hold a fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the Inquiry Report. A copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation against the Inquiry Report. The Board, after considering the representation of the petitioner, once again accepted the Inquiry Report and awarded a major penalty by reducing to the minimum stage of time scale of the petitioner with consequent implications of his seniority and by placing his seniority at the lowest stage in the cadre as on the date of the order vide the order dated 4. 4. 2000. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, by its proceeding and order dated 22. 11. 2002 proposed to inflict upon the petitioner only one penalty under Regulation 9 (B) (a) (i) of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1996 i. e. reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list. However, before the appellate authority actually decided the appeal, the petitioner apparently filed this writ petition.