MADHUSUDAN PANDEY Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.8.1999 (Annexure -1) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of compulsory retirement. By the said order, it has been further directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get any other emoluments other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 3.1.2000 whereby the appeal preferred against the said order, has been dismissed.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as the Head Clerk at Electric Supply Division No. 1, Gaya and by order dated 16.11.1995, he was put under suspension. By order dated 18.9.1996, a departmental proceeding was initiated and the Inquiry Officer submitted report exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. The disciplinary authority considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and disagreed with his finding and by order dated 17.2.1999 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service. While doing so, the disciplinary authority held that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. Petitioner submitted his reply and the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the same, inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed.

(3.) MR . Mihir Kumar Jha, appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly states that in view of the decision of this court in the case of Jai Ballabh Mullic V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others reported in 2003 (1) P.L.J.R. 730, the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be imposed on the employee who is governed by the Certified Standing Order. He further states that in view of the judgment of this court In the case of Jagdish Lali V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board & ors.) reported in 2003 (3) P.L.J.R. 86, only giving opportunity against the proposed punishment without giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee to satisfy that the finding of exoneration recorded by the Inquiry Officer is just and proper, is in the teeth of the principle of natural justice. In the case of Jai Ballabh Mullic (supra), this court has held as follows: "It seems that the respondents Board while passing the impugned order had in its mind the punishment as provided under Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which inter alia provides the punishment of compulsory retirement and recovery from the pay of whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders. It is not in dispute that the provisions of the said rule does not apply in the case of the petitioner. In view of the discussions aforesaid, the impugned order of punishment dated 13.3.1999 (Annexure -1) cannot be allowed to stand and the same is set aside. The respondents Board is directed to pass order afresh bearing in mind the observations made above. The consequential benefit shall abide by the decision of the Board."