RAM PRATAP CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 4. 9. 1999 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 22. 5. 1998 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondents by which in an enquiry under Regulation 6 of the Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1962") after holding the petitioner guilty of supervisory negligence, punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner and the appellate order dated 6. 8. 1999 (Annex. 5) passed by the Appellate Authority respondent No. 1 Secretary by which the appeal of the petitioner against the order Annex. 3 dated 22. 5. 1998 was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- Initially, an enquiry under Regulation 7 (1) of the Regulations of 1962 was initiated against the petitioner and he was served with the statement of allegations alongwith the memorandum dated 12. 8. 1996 (Annex. 1) and the main allegation against the petitioner was that while he was working as Assistant Engineer, Sadulgarh Rajpur during the period from 9. 9. 1991 to 14. 5. 1993, he had committed grave irregularities in issuing electric connections and by the act of the petitioner, a financial loss was caused to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short "the Board" ). THE details of the allegations levelled against the petitioner through memorandum Annex. 1 are that under the Group Scheme of granting 30 domestic connections, the estimates were prepared of domestic lines and the work order was also issued. But out of 30 connections, only 5 connections were released at site by the petitioner and connections for 25 persons were not released and the impression was given that these consumers had refused to take the connection, but later on, under a very well planned scheme, the electricity line of 10 poles was installed from the well bearing two phase line instead of single phase and in such a manner that in connivance of the petitioner, the facility for running the well was made available by theft of electricity and thereby causing huge financial loss to the Board and therefore, irregularities were committed by the petitioner and thus, he has committed supervisory negligence. A reply to the allegations levelled against the petitioner through Annex. 1 was filed by the petitioner on 13. 12. 1996 and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2. In the said reply Annex. 2, it was submitted by the petitioner that though 30 applications for domestic connections were received, but estimates were prepared by one Bhagwan Singh, Junior Engineer and after fulfilling all formalities, 5 consumers obtained connections and for rest, Junior Engineer Bhagwan Singh did not report to the petitioner, which was his duty and therefore, it was wrong to say that the petitioner had committed irregularities. It has been further contended by the petitioner in the reply that since the Junior Engineer did not produce the compliance report, therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to know the actual facts etc. etc. THE further case of the petitioner is that after the reply Annex. 2 was filed by him on 13. 12. 1996, the disciplinary proceedings were converted into Regulations 6 of the Regulations of 1962 from Regulation 7 of Regulations 1962 and in this respect, a letter dated 31. 12. 1997 was issued and the petitioner submitted additional reply on 27. 1. 1998. It may be stated here that Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 1962 is equivalent to Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. THE Disciplinary Authority, after considering the reply of the petitioner and other material available on record, held the petitioner guilty of supervisory negligence and thus, imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect against the petitioner through impugned order Annex. 3 dated 22. 5. 1998. Aggrieved by the said order Annex. 3 dated 22. 5. 1998, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the Board under Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1962 and a copy of the said appeal is marked as Annex. 4. After hearing the petitioner, the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1-Secretary) through impugned appellate order dated 6. 8. 1999 (Annex. 5) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding inter- alia that as per the Rules, all the 30 connections ought to have been released after estimates were prepared under a group scheme, but only five connections were released and thus, financial loss was caused to the Board. Had the work would have been supervised in a proper manner by the petitioner, this would not have happened. In this petition, both the impugned order Annex. 3 dated 22. 5. 1998 and appellate order Annex. 5 dated 6. 8. 1999 have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows:- (i) That out of 30 persons, 25 persons did not take the connection and for that, the petitioner cannot be penalised and thus, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in this respect are erroneous one and should be set aside. (ii) That apart from this, the petitioner was found guilty of supervisory negligence and therefore, it does not amount to any punishment and thus, withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was wrong. (iii) That appellate order Annex. 5 dated 6. 8. 1999 is also liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it is not a speaking order. (iv) That looking to the nature of allegations found proved against the petitioner, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate to the allegations found proved against him. (v) That apart from this, since Junior Engineer Benney Singh has been exonerated of all the allegations levelled against him through appellate order Annex. 7 dated 6. 8. 1999, therefore, the petitioner should also have been exonerated and from this point of view also, the impugned orders Annex. 3 and 5 cannot be sustained. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been submitted by the respondents that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show any illegality in the impugned orders Annex. 3 and Annex. 5 and furthermore, the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited one and since the petitioner has committed the irregularities and allowed the consumers to use the facility of running the well by mis-using the electricity, which amounted to theft, therefore, the allegations were rightly found proved against him and his appeal was also rightly dismissed by the appellate authority. It has been further submitted by the respondents that exoneration of Benny Singh of the allegations levelled against him would not affect the penalty imposed upon the petitioner and there is no question of discrimination as allegations levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) A perusal of impugned order Annex. 3 dated 22. 5. 1998 reveals that the Disciplinary Authority has clearly observed that out of 30 connections, only five connections were released by the petitioner and rest were not released and thus, he caused financial loss to the Board and in the statement of allegations (Annex. 1), this position was very much clarified on the point that a case of electric theft was also found proved for which the petitioner was held guilty of supervisory negligence.