PURUSHOTTAM SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31-12-1997 whereby the disciplinary authority awarded major punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, censure and withholding the salary during the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid, Annexure-2 and also the appellate order dated 7-8-1999 whereby major punishment i.e. stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was withdrawn and the punishment of censure and withholding of salary during the period of suspension except subsistence allowance paid, Annexure-1 was confirmed.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as-Electrical Executive Engineer, M.R.T. Division, Jamshedpur in the year 1987. On 30-4-1987, the meter of M/s. Usha Alloy Ltd; Adityapur was changed in presence of the officers of M.R.T. including the petitioner and the supply wings. THE old defective meter was not devaluted to M.R.T. Jamshedpur. On 7-2-1991, a charge-sheet was furnished to the petitioner in connection with loss of old meter which was said to have been lost after change of meter in the premises of M/s. Usha Alloy Ltd. THE petitioner filed explanation. Subsequently, the Board vide its resolution dated 28-8-1991 withdrew the charge made against the petitioner, Annexure-9 but the departmental proceedings continued against the other officers. THE Electricity Board vide its resolution dated 22-9-1995 initiated a departmental inquiry against the petitioner in connection with the said, charge, Annexure-10. THE petitioner challenged the charges in C.W.J.C. No. 10370/95. THE said writ petition was dismissed on 28-3-1997.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 wherein stand has been taken that there was no lapses in the departmental proceedings or violation of principles of natural justice nor any such any allegation has been made. The petitioner had brought the new meter for replacement at the premises of the consumer. He ought to have ensured safe custody of the meter and as such, it was his responsibility to take defective meter and deposit the same as required. The petitioner was present in the premises at the time of replacement of meter but he did not take care to ensure that old meter be kept in the safe custody. The entire charge was based on the fact that old meter replaced from the premises of the consumer was misplaced due to negligence and irresponsible act on the part of the officers including the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that there was no charge for which petitioner was punished. The petitioner appeared in the proceedings and full opportunity was given to prove innocence and thereafter inquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner partially guilty of the charges. A criminal case had also been instituted against the petitioner in which cognizance has already been taken. Moreover, it is matter of judicial review in which scope of interference by the Court is limited. The Court cannot function as appellate authority.