Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 317 (JHR)

Sachida Nand Sinha v. B. S. E. B.

2002-03-08

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the serial No. 6 of resolution No. 154 Dated 16.3.2000 Issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand State Electricity Board), whereby and whereunder the Petitioner was allowed time bound promotion w.e.f. prospective date. According to petitioner, he should have been allowed benefit of time bound promotion w.e.f. 12.12.1993 instead of the prospective date of 1.3.2000. 2. The petitioner has further challenged the resolution No. 345 dated 29.4.1999 issued by the Board whereby and whereunder he has been inflicted minor punishment of censure. 3. As the issue of promotion is dependent on punishment, it is desirable to decide the issue relating to punishment before the issue relating to time bound promotion. The petitioner, a junior engineer while posted at Paroo (Muzaffarpur). the Board vide letter dated 6.8.1996 called for explanation for dereliction of duty, misuse of post, gross misconduct and bribery as was alleged by the Vigillance Department. On receipt of reply, the Board being not satisfied. initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner and communicated the charges vide letter No. 1320 dated 28.10.1997. The enquiry officer thereafter submitted report and on receipt of reply, the Board inflicted minor punishment of censure by impugned resolution No. 345 dated 29.4.1999. 4. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that though the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner, the respondents never gave any show cause snowing ground of disagreement and passed impugned resolution on 29.4.1999 in violation of rules of natural justice. 5. Counsel for the Board relied on specified averment made in the counter- affidavit and the impugned order wherein it is stated that the Board disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and gave a notice to petitioner by its resolution on 150 dated 27.2.1999. Reference of such resolution has also been made in the impugned resolution dated 29.4.1999. 6. In the writ petition, though the petitioner has stated that no such show cause notice was given to the petitioner disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer, in the reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has accepted that a second show cause notice was given vide resolution No. 150 dated 27.2.1999. 7. 6. In the writ petition, though the petitioner has stated that no such show cause notice was given to the petitioner disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer, in the reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has accepted that a second show cause notice was given vide resolution No. 150 dated 27.2.1999. 7. In the background, as the petitioner was given second show cause notice, the Board having disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and the petitioner having suppressed the fact in the writ petition, this Court finds no illegality in the resolution dated 29.4.1999. nor Intends to interfere with the same. 8. From the stand taken by the Board, it will be evident that because of pendency of the proceeding, earlier the case of petitioner was not considered but time bound promotion was considered subsequently. It was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (sic) meeting on 30.5.1998. In the said meeting, it was found that earlier in another departmental proceeding, the Board vide its resolution No. 1320 dated 28.10.1997 had inflicted punishment of censure on petitioner which relates to a charge of the year 1990. The effect of such censure starts from the date of incidence of such allegation and continues for a period of three years and thus the petitioner having not found fit for promotion from earlier date, has been given promotion from prospective date. 9. In the meantime, the other punishment of censure having inflicted by impugned resolution dated 29.4.1999 in respect to period 1996, the petitioner cannot claim for promotion from earlier date. In the background, there appears to be no Illegality, if the petitioner has been allowed promotion from prospective date vide resolution No. 154 dated 16,3.2000. 10. There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.