PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As one is generally aware from frequent Newspaper reports that Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is financially not in good health. Still this is no deterrence for the Board to avoid frivolous litigation. The Board has experts to advice if a case is fit one to file appeal. Still the appeals are being filed in case where it would show them to be "penny wise and pound foolish". Board must have a mechanism to check this uncalled for litigation. This appeal appears to be one such appeal. Board may wish to check, how much it has spend to contest the claim for recovery of approximately Rs. 1 Lakh.

(2.) Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana directed a recovery of sum of Rs. 1,31,000/- from Jagjit Singh, respondent-plaintiff. Jagjit Singh (respondent) filed a suit to challenge the said order and recovery on the ground that the said order was illegal null, and void. On being promoted as Junior Engineer on 13.09.1993, the respondent was posted to work at Ludhiana. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 22.12.1978 and presently working at Giddarwaha (Muktsar). While working at Ludhiana, he was served a show cause notice on 15.5.1997 for recovery of the said amount as noted above. Thereafter, impugned order was passed on 2.6.99, directing recovery from the salary of respondent- plaintiff. The respondent accordingly challenged the same by filing civil suit. As per the pleadings, the respondent-plaintiff was transferred from City Sub Division, West on 7.8.1991 and at that time he had given the complete charge of office to Assistant Engineer Focal Point Sub Division (defendant No.5). It is stated that respondent was issued account referring certificate on the basis of which, the plaintiff joined the place of transfer at West Division. The grievance of the plaintiff is that his reply to the show cause notice was not considered by the competent authority and the impugned order was passed arbitrarily, without holding any enquiry. Referring to the case of Manpal Verma versus The Haryana State Federation of Consumer Coop Wholesale Stores Ltd. and others, 1996 (1) RSJ 683 it was pleaded that recovery order cannot be passed without holding inquiry. It was further pointed out that though the procedure of recovery has been prescribed in Regulation 10 (1) of the PSEB Employees( Punishment and Appeal) Regulation, 1965 but sub rule (iv) provides that such order should state reasons. The impugned order was termed as cryptic. It is also urged that in view of the law laid down in Deep Chand Sharma versus State of Haryana 1981 (3) SLR 188, the order imposing punishment for recovery without discussing the explanation of the employee would make the order non speaking and thus not competent.

(3.) The Courts have held that before passing this order of punishment, inquiry was essential which finding of course is disputed by the Board. But this aspect need not be gone into in view of the some other very valid grounds which were considered by the Courts to allow the suit and to dismiss the appeal. It is seen that there was culpable delay on the part of the Board to initiate the process of recovering which could not have been effected even in terms of the policy formulated by the Board.