Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 162 (PAT)

Lala Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2008-01-23

BARIN GHOSH, RAJESH BALIA

body2008
Judgment 1. The appellant was appointed as a Security Guard in Bihar State Electricity Board on 15.11.1968 and was removed from service on 18.1.2000 after subjecting him to a Departmental Enquiry by serving the memorandum of charges dated 18.7.1995 in respect of an incident which allegedly took place on 27.2.1995. 2. The termination order dated 18.1.2000 has been passed by accepting the finding recorded in enquiry report, and considering it to be the finding about the proof of charges levelled against the delinquent, punishment of removal was imposed, which order was affirmed by the appellate authority after the matter was remanded by this Court to the appellate authority for passing speaking order by considering the finding given in the enquiry report in respect of the charges levelled against the delinquent Officer and also referring to the statement of the codelinquent. The order of the appellate authority after remand is dated 2.1.2001. 3. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition considering that there is no infirmity in the Departmental proceeding or in the order of the appellate authority. After considering the enquiry report the order has further appeared to be influenced by the fact that the petitioner, who was employed as a Security Guard and, who was in barrack, was under allegation of assaulting and keeping the child in the illegal confinement for three hours. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that being a Security Guard it was not permissible for him to take law in his own hand at any point of time. He also found that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate to the gravity of charge proved. 4. Having perused the material before us and after hearing the learned counsel, it is obvious that at any stage of dealing with the case either by the Departmental Authorities or by the learned Single Judge, the findings of the Enquiry Officer have not been noticed which are the foundation of inflicting punishment. As we shall presently notice if closely read the findings of the Enquiry Officer totally support the delinquent Officer. It is not a case of accepting the finding of fact recorded by Enquiry Officer. 5. The question is whether the impugned orders are based on assuming that as per the Enquiry Report the charges against the delinquent Officer are proved, or in fact such findings exist. It is not a case of accepting the finding of fact recorded by Enquiry Officer. 5. The question is whether the impugned orders are based on assuming that as per the Enquiry Report the charges against the delinquent Officer are proved, or in fact such findings exist. For this purpose it will be necessary to notice the basic facts of the present case. 6. The charge-sheet dated 18.7.1995 can be considered in two parts. The first allegation consist of the charge that on 27.2.1995, while delinquent Officer was posted at K.T.P.S., he, alongwith his servant Mangru, had misbehaved with Additional Assistant Electrical Engineer, S. Sukha, and his son, Rohit Sukha. No details of said misbehavior were given in the charge-sheet and no finding as to exact conduct which is considered an act of misbehavior against the delinquent Officer has been recorded. The second part of the charge relates to the incident, which happened at the same Unit, on the same day alleging that in the evening when son of Sri S. Sukha alongwith his friends came near the 33 KV receiving Station for drinking water from the tap situated there the delinquent Lallan Singh and his servant caught hold of the boys, took them to the barrack and kept there hostage by tying them. It was also alleged that Rohit Sukha was beaten by iron rod and he was kept confined in the barrack for three hours. At the time of this incident P.K. Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer, K.T.P.S., was stated to be present. 7. The defence of the delinquent in respect of charges leveled against him were that in the morning of 27.2.1995 he was on duty in the first shift. Mangru, who is a servant in the MESS of the Board, had teased the son of S. Sukha and there was scuffle between the two in which the son of S. Sukha Saheb received some injuries. He disengaged them. At that time the son of Sukha Saheb went away after threatening of taking revenge. On that very evening he came alongwith some of his friends to teach a lesson to Mangru. At that time in the barrack the Security Guards and Home Guards, were available, and due to their efforts five of them were caught and three ran away. About this incident the concerned Officers were intimated and information was also given to the Police Station. At that time in the barrack the Security Guards and Home Guards, were available, and due to their efforts five of them were caught and three ran away. About this incident the concerned Officers were intimated and information was also given to the Police Station. After some time the Police came and took the captive boys and released them. No action was taken against those boys. With the aforesaid allegation and defence version the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer reads as under: (Local Language) 8. Translated in English it reads that in the morning of 27.2.1995 delinquent with servant of MESS misbehaved with Rohit Sukha, son of Suleman Sukha. Mangru was servant of MESS and was also working at residence of Mr. Suleman Sukha. But during that period Mangru had left working at Mr. Sukha. The Enquiry Officer further recorded that Rohit Kumar could not tolerate his conduct and came back with 8 persons to teach lesson to Security Guards and attacked the barrack. In the what followed 5 students were caught and three students ran away. The 5 students who had been caught in this incident were released on intervention by Police Inspector, Jakkanpur, but no case was registered. 9. This finding clearly betrays that Mangru was servant of MESS as alleged by delinquent and not of the delinquent. Their finding was contrary to allegation in charge-sheet that Mangru was servant of delinquent. Cause of disputes arose be-cause Mangru had stopped working at Mr. Sukhas residence and scuffle in the MESS was with Mangru. 10. As per Enquiry Officer after Rohit left in the morning, he returned back with his 8 associates and attacked barrack to teach lesson to Security Guards and Rohit .and 5 of his associates have been taken into custody by Security Guards only in discharge of their duty and self defense. 11. How these findings can be taken to be proof of charge levelled against delinquent about keeping the boys in illegal custody. In fact the finding totally belie the allegation made in memorandum of charges. 12. From the aforesaid finding it is clear that while the finding about misbe having with the son of Mr. 11. How these findings can be taken to be proof of charge levelled against delinquent about keeping the boys in illegal custody. In fact the finding totally belie the allegation made in memorandum of charges. 12. From the aforesaid finding it is clear that while the finding about misbe having with the son of Mr. S. Sukha is without any details of the occurrence which could be treated as incident of misbehavior by the petitioner-appellant and so far as about the evening happening is concerned, it is exactly in support of the version of the delinquent Officer. 13. It would be further pertinent to notice that according to charge-sheet, at the time of alleged incident of keeping the five boys captive in the barracks while they came for drinking water without causing any offence to the Security Guard, Sri P.K. Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer, KTPS, was present. His statement was recorded and referred to in the Enquiry Report which fully corroborates the defence taken by the delinquent Officer. Prakash Kumar Singh has stated that on 27.2.1995 four-five students wanted to give a beating to the servant of the K.T.P.S., Mangru, and the members of the Security Guard present there caught hold of those students and information about that was given to the concerned Police Station. Amongst them Sri S. Sukhas son was also there and without taking action against the delinquent students, action was taken against the Security Guards. He states that the Security Guards had informed that the students had come with the intention to indulge in violence. 14. The only testimony, referred to by the Appellate Authority, is the statement of Mangru who totally corroborates the defence of the petitioner-appellant about the happening in the morning. Mangru admitted that it was he who has given a beating to Rohit Sukha after the scuffle took place between him and Rohit Sukha and Lallan Singh has only disengaged them. Rohit has not come in the witness box who had allegedly been insulted, either before the Departmental Enquiry or before the criminal trial about the incident in which the delinquent Officer has been acquitted. As a matter of fact, the entire enquiry reflects that it is not a case of finding against the delinquent Officer that he has committed any misconduct. As a matter of fact, the entire enquiry reflects that it is not a case of finding against the delinquent Officer that he has committed any misconduct. If a group of students had come to the premises of K.T.P.S. to give beating to Security Guards and attacks the barrack, as found by the Enquiry Officer, it was the duty of the Security Guards to prevent them from doing so and keep them in captive till Police came. They had only discharged their duty to defend as Security Guards of K.T.P.S. premises against trespass by miscreants and defended themselves. 15. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer has been accepted, but has been accepted to be against the delinquent Officer by assuming that the delinquent students were innocent because the complainant happened to be an Officer of the Board and the delinquent is Security Guard only. The order of Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment on the basis of Enquiry Report and its affirmation by Appellate Authority betrays total non-application of mind. 16. Such an enquiry neither can be termed fair nor in accordance with law and punishment on the basis of such enquiry without any application of mind to the findings actually recorded and without considering them in the light of defence cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. 17. Apparently, order under appeal by ignoring the vital material as well as the impugned order for the same reasons cannot be sustained. 18. The appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the order of termination as well as the order of the appellate authority, affirming the punishment, are quashed. As a result of this order, the appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including emoluments for the period during which he has been wrongly kept out of service. The Board shall pay cost of litigation to the appellant which is quantified Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). 19. As a result of this order, the appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including emoluments for the period during which he has been wrongly kept out of service. The Board shall pay cost of litigation to the appellant which is quantified Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). 19. Before parting with the case we may record our deep sense of distress that this case reflects even after five decades of our Constitutional governance, a heavily loaded mindset on the part of respondents, who is a State Agency, to protect the real culprits, headed by son of one of its Officer, by not taking any proceeding against those who had entered their premises to attack Security Guard for personal revenge against an employee of MESS for not working at residence but has tried to harass and punish the member of Security Guard who only discharged his duty. Have we not yet freed ourselves from the yoke of feudal and colonial culture of reverence to blue blood? The Boards conduct deserves to be severe deprecated.