UMDA DEVI Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the Resolution dated 6th of April, 1999 (Annexure-12) whereby one Ram Lakhan Sahi, an employee of Bihar State Electricity Board, has been inflicted with various penalties.

(2.) Petitioners are the heirs of said Ram Lakhan Sahi who was a Junior Engineer employed in the Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'. By order dated 14-11-1984 (Annexure-4), he was put under suspension on account of submission of the charge sheet against him on 8-1-1983 in Jharia P.S. Case No. 36 of 1981 registered under Sections 409, 410, 414 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The order putting him under suspension made it clear that the same shall be without prejudice to the departmental proceeding to be initiated against him separately.

(3.) The employee was served with the charge sheet dated 28-11-1985 (Annexure-3). According to the charge while Ram Lakhan Sahi was posted as Junior Engineer in the Rural Electrification at Govindpur, one drum of aluminium wire was issued to him for rural electrification but on conspiracy with other persons, he sold the same. Further charge against the employee was of tampering the order to favour the consumer. The third charge pertains to failure to refund certain articles given to him. The enquiry officer, ultimately, submitted the report exonerating the employee from all the charges. The discpilinary authority disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and after recording the conclusive finding of guilt, gave show cause notice to the employee dated 1-12-1998 (Annexure-8) against the proposed punishment in the said show cause notice against the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority had assigned the reasons for disagreement. The employee submitted his reply dated 15-12-1998. Before the disciplinary authority could pass the final order, the employee retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-1-1999. After the superannuation of the employee, the disciplinary authority, on consideration of his reply by the impugned order dated 6-4-1999 (Annexure-12), inflicted the following punishments: