BHUPENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25.7.2001 passed in CWJC No. 7619 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application filed by him challenging the order dated 15.2.2001, contained in Annexure -5 to the writ application, whereby his prayer to take assistance of Chakardhar Prasad Singh, (Exemployee) General Secretary of the Bihar State Electric Supply Workers ' Union in a departmental proceeding has been rejected.

(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant is a permanent employee of the respondent -Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and is working as a Super Selection Grade Accounts Assistant at Kosi Area Electricity Board, Saharsa. On the basis of certain allegations, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding by Office Order No. 155 dated 11,1.1999 and accordingly the Board decided to initiate a proceeding in accordance with the Certified Standing Order. The memo of charges were served and Inquiry Officer was appointed and the departmental proceedings commenced against him. During pendency of the proceedings on 5.2.2001, the appellant filed an application before the Inquiry Officer requesting that Sri Chakradhar Prasad Singh, General Secretary, of the Bihar State Electric Supply Workers Union may be allowed to appear as defence assistant on his behalf. The said prayer was rejected by order dated 15.2.2001 by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that in terms of the decision of the Board, a retired employee of the Board even if a member of the Workmen Union cannot be allowed to appear as defence assistant in the departmental proceeding on behalf of the workmen. The said order has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Board is an Industrial Establishment and service conditions of its employees are governed by the Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 of the Board. Clause 30 (4th stage) of the certified Standing Orders provides that the employee shall be allowed an opportunity if so required by him to take assistance from a member of the executive of the union of which that workman concerned happens to be a member during the course of the enquiry when the evidence is led and in accordance with the said provision, he is entitled to take assistance of Sri Charkradhar Pd. Singh and the consequent Standing Order dated 1.6.1999 providing inter alia that no retired officer/ workmen or outsider (excluding advocates) will be allowed to function as defence assistant in departmental proceedings is unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such impugned order be set aside and he be allowed to take assistance of ex -employee Sri Chakardhar Prasad Singh who is also a member of the executive of the Union of which the appellant is a member.

(3.) TO appreciate the point, it is necessary to refer to two Standing Orders relevant for the disposal of the present appeal. Clause 30 of the Certified Standing Order deals with disciplinary action against the workman other than casual and five stages are provided under the said clause that is to be followed while conducting the inquiry against the delinquent employee. 4th Stage provides that the competent authority will hold inquiry and provide all opportunities to the employee. It further provides that the employee shall be allowed an opportunity if so required by him to take assistance from a member of the executive of the union of which that workman concerned happens to be a member during the course of the inquiry when the evidence is led.The Board with a view to expedite the departmental proceeding and to prevent obstruction and hindrance in continuance of the proceeding by subsequent Standing Order No. 816/EB dated 1.6.1999 took three decisions, namely, (a) no workmen of the Board will be allowed to depose as defence witness or prosecution witness and act as defence assistants, without obtaining the written permission from their controlling authority; (b) the Inquiry Officer may refuse the facility of allowing a person to act as defence assistant if he may hinder/obstruct or hamper the progress of departmental proceeding, and (c) no retired officer/workmen of the Board or outsider (excluding advocates) will henceforth be allowed to function as defence assistant in the departmental proceeding. The said Standing Order dated 1.6.1999 runs as follows.