Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 861 (PAT)

Kameshwar Mishra v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2004-08-25

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.9.1999 (Annexure-13) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 17.4.1996. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that while the petitioner was working as an Accounts Assistant at Transmission Division, Muzaffarpur, on the ground of charge of assault to the Assistant Executive Engineer, the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board by order dated 17.4.1996 dismissed him from the service. Against the said order, he preferred C.W.J.C. No. 6593 of 1996 and this Court, by order dated 17.1.1997 quashed the order of dismissal and directed the Board to pass fresh order bearing in mind the observation made by it. While setting aside the order of dismissal, this Court had observed that the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of allegation. As directed, the Board decided the matter and again passed order of dismissal of the petitioner from service by order dated 6.5.1998. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2181 of 1999 and again, this Court quashed the order of dismissal and remitted the matter back for reconsideration of its order dated 7.4.1999. In the light of aforesaid order, the case of the petitioner was con- sidered by the Board in its meeting held on 30th of July, 1999 and it inflicted penalty of compulsory retirement. After the said order, petitioner submitted his pension paper for grant of pension which was sanctioned and is being paid to him regularly. The petitioner has chosen to file this application on 23.10.2003. 3. Mr. Anand Mohan Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is governed by the Certified Standing Order which does not provide for punishment of compulsory retirement and in that view of the matter, the order impugned is fit to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Ballabh Mallic V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. 2003(1) PLJR 730 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph no. 11 thereof, which reads as follows: "11. It is common ground that the petitioner is governed by the Certified Standing Order and Bihar Pension Rules also applies to him. 2003(1) PLJR 730 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph no. 11 thereof, which reads as follows: "11. It is common ground that the petitioner is governed by the Certified Standing Order and Bihar Pension Rules also applies to him. Clause 29B of the Certified Standing Order quoted above, inter alia, provides that the acts or omissions enumerated therein shall be misconduct for which the delinquent shall be liable to be dismissed, discharged, reduced in rank or transferred without T.A. or can be visited with the penalty of stoppage of promotion for specified pe- riod. Thus, the penalty of compulsory retirement or deduction of 20% of the defalcated amount from the retiral dues, are not the penalties provided in the Certified Standing Order by which he is governed. This renders the order imposing punishment bad in law." 4. Mr. R.K. Dutta, appearing on behalf of the respondent Board, however, submits that the writ application suffers from delay and laches and the petitioner having accepted the decision of the Board inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement, same is not fit to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 5. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Verma. It is common ground that the Certified Standing Order by which the petitioner is governed, does not contemplate of any punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be allowed to stand. As the order passed by the respondents is patently illegal, I am not inclined to dismiss this writ application on the ground of delay and laches. 6. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and respondents are directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law bearing in mind the observation made above within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. No cost.