ABHAY KUMAR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Petitioner is a serving Junior Engineer with the Board. He is aggrieved by the punishment order dated 26.2.2001 as contained in Annexure -1 whereunder he has been imposed three punishment(s) namely Censure, stoppage of three increments without cummulative effect and withholding of promotion for two years with effect from due date. The challenge is founded on the ground that he was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself in the light of the provisions contained in R. 55A of the Civil Services (C.C. & A) Rules 1930 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules). In support of such submission reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Bhageshwar Jha V/s. The State of Bihar & others, 1993 1 PLJR 585 Paragraphs 15 and 16. Impugned punishment order has been passed after petitioner was served with notice dated 16.12.1998, perusal whereof indicates that irregularities in the meter reading causing substantial loss to the Board was noticed during the internal audit, whereafter notice dated 16.12.1998 was served on the petitioner and others. Petitioner filed his reply dated 29.1.1999 stating that he was not concerned with the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of the notice. The imputations contained in Paragraphs - 3 and 4 of the notice did concern the petitioner but he being a Junior Engineer could not be held responsible for the lapses on the part of the Meter Reader as Meter Reader is submitting report to another officer and not to the petitioner as such for the delay in replacing the meter he could not be held responsible. The authorities of the Board considered the aforesaid reply dated 29.1.1999 Annexure -3 and passed the impugned order against which the present writ application has been filed on the ground that the notice Annexure -2 and the impugned punishment order Annexure -1 are violative of the provisions of R. 55A of the Rules as it is said that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order. It is further pointed out from the notice itself that the petitioner was posted at Darbhanga for the period between January 1986 to 18.4.1989, but the allegations are for the period April, 1989 to 13.6.1994 the date on which internal audit was completed before which petitioner had already left Darbhanga in April, 1989 itself. Such submission has been refuted by the counsel for the Board with reference to the averments made in the notice as also the counter -affidavit Paragraph -4 wherefrom it appears, the Meter of K.D.W. 415 domestic remained un - operational and was not recording any reading for the period April, 1988 to March, 1992 while the petitioner remained at Darbhanga, and he failed to take remedial steps for replacing the meter and the Board suffered loss in revenue collection. Appreciating these facts, the authorities of the Board having considered the cause shown by the petitioner have imposed minor punishment under impugned order dated 26.2. 2001. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the same as R. 55A only require grant of adequate opportunity of making representation before imposing minor punishment as specified in Clauses (i) (ii) and (iv) of R. 49 of the Rules. Said requirement was completed when the cause shown by the petitioner was considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the effect of the punishment imposed has already lapsed as more than three years have passed. Effect of the punishment order be considered by the authorities themselves when the petitioner becomes ripe for promotion and this Court is not required to observe anything in that regard. The application is dismissed.