RAGHBENDRA PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ajey Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh for the respondents. This writ petition arises out of disciplinary proceedings and is directed against the order dated 15.3.2005 (Annexure-18), passed by the Board of Directors of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), in the capacity of the appellate authority, whereby it has upheld the order of punishment dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure- 16), passed by the disciplinary authority. The learned disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,626.00, from the petitioner on account of store discrepancies, from the petitioner's entitlement of the amount of gratuity. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, functioned as storekeeper at different places. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 27.4.2000 (Annexure-1), on account of short-fall in the various stores where he was storekeeper at different points of time. According to the chart prepared by learned counsel for the petitioner, the following discrepancies were noticed and are the subject matter of the charge-sheet. Short Excess Unregularised 1. Godda 22.4.70 to 25.4.70 3,072 3382.29 2.Ramnagar store 42,033.50 1,285 37,000 8-11-82 to 8-12-82 26.11.84 to 15.1.85 3.Betiah 20.6.85 to 4.8.85 36 40 16.6.86 to 6.9.86 12.11.87 to 22.11.87 600 4.5.93 to 5.6.93 66,418 Add 16.6.86 to 6.9.86 During Ramnagar enquiry Discrepancy of Rs. 72,515. 2.1. The petitioner superannuated from the services of the Board on 30.4.2000, while functioning as assistant store-keeper. The petitioner fully participated in the enquiry proceedings and defended his position. On a consideration of the materials before him, the learned Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report dated 1.10.2002 (Annexure-3), whereby the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges. In view of the delay in passing the final order, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 3732 of 2003 (Raghbendra Prasad vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.), which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 15.4.2003 (Annexure-4), whereby the Board was directed that the departmental proceeding be concluded within a period of six weeks. The learned disciplinary authority thereafter passed the order of punishment on 30.6.2003 (Annexure-5), whereby a sum of Rs. 1,10,626.00 was directed to be recovered from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 9906 of 2003 (Raghbendra Prasad vs. BSEB & Ors.), which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 17.12.2003 (Annexure-6). The order of punishment was quashed, liberty was given to the learned disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter after serving on the petitioner the reasons for disagreement to be conveyed to the petitioner to show-cause and then pass a final order. 2.2. The learned disciplinary authority thereafter conveyed the reasons for disagreement to the petitioner, vide communication dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure-7), calling him upon to show-cause, and as to why a sum of Rs. 1,10,626.00 be not recovered from the amount of gratuity payable to him in terms of Rule 139 of Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure-8). On a consideration of the materials including the cause shown, the learned disciplinary authority passed identical order of punishment and communicated to the petitioner on 8.4.2004 (Annexure-9). The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 7188 of 2004 (Raghbendra Prasad vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.), which was disposed of by order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure-11), whereby the said order of punishment dated 8.4.2004 (Annexure-9), was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the observations made in the order and in accordance with law. 2.3. This was followed by show-cause notice dated 5.8.2004 (Annexure-12). The Board issued show-cause notice dated 5.8.2004 (Annexure-12) to the petitioner with the instruction to submit his reply within 10 days as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer be not reversed. The petitioner had shown cause by communication dated 23.8.2004 (Annexure-13). The respondent Board proceeded to issue second show-cause notice as to why a sum of Rs. 1,10,626.00 be not recovered from the amount of gratuity in terms of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner had shown cause and, on a consideration of the same and other materials on record, the impugned order of punishment dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure-16 ) was passed. 2.4. The petitioner preferred appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.3.2008 (Annexure-18), and the order of punishment for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,10,626.00 has been directed to be recovered from the amount of gratuity admissible to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Board has supported the impugned action. He submits that the total short-fall in the stores where the petitioner was at various points of time posted as store keeper was to the tune of Rs. 1,46,559.50, whereas goods of the value of Rs. 5307.29 was found in excess. In other words, the short-fall attributable to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,41,252.21. The petitioner has been awarded punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,626.50 only. He next submits that this is not a court of appeal. This Court in exercise of its power of judicial review has limited jurisdiction while dealing with the departmental proceeding. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in A.I.R. 1996 SC 484 in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others (para 12). He also submits that the facts and circumstances in the case of Muneshwar Prasad Sinha (supra) were different. That was a case where departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after he had superannuated from service, whereas the departmental proceeding against the present petitioner has been initiated while he was still in service. He lastly submits that the issue relating to delay in initiating the departmental proceeding was raised by the petitioner in his earlier writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5344 of 2001, and the order dated 27.6.2001 (Annexure-2), disposing of the writ petition had in substance rejected the contention. He lastly submits that the petitioner is not being made a scape-goat in the matter. He was the person actually operating the stores and, therefore, he was responsible for the day-to-day affairs.