Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 772 (PAT)

Shib Nath Jha v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2008-06-26

V.N.SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna(hereinaifer referred to as "the Board"). 2. This writ application is directed against the punishment order dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-2 whereunder sum of Rs. 5,60,784=45/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner as also his pension has been fixed at Nil. Further prayer is to quash the appellate order dated 11.1.2005 as communicated to the petitioner under memo No. 183 dated 29.1.2005 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, whereunder the appeal against the aforesaid punishment order has been dismissed. 3. Petitioner superannuated while serving the Board as a Senior Store Keeper at the Central Store Saharsa with effect from 28.2.1999. One day prior thereto he was served with Memo No. 889 dated 27.2.1999, Annexure-1, enclosing the charge sheet imputing shortage in the store while petitioner served as Assistant Store keeper in the store at Motihari for the period between 1.5.1971 to 31.12.1971 and the shortage was discovered during verification made on 29.11.1971. Petitioner under his letter dated 5.4.1999, Annexure-5 informed the Board that the belated initiation of the departmental proceeding is wholly uncalled for and the proceeding itself be closed as he has already superannuated since the charges relate to shortage in the store during the period between 1.5.1971 to 31.12.1971 which was discovered on 29.11.1971. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there was no justification for initiating proceeding for such shortage after about twenty eight years of its discovery. Ignoring the objection of the petitioner dated 5.4.1999, Annexure-5 the authorities of the Board directed the petitioner to furnish his written defence before the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner assailed such direction by filing C.W.J.C.No. 6991 of 2000 on the ground that such belated proceeding should not be allowed to continue. Under his letter dated 3.1.2000, Annexure-8 petitioner, however informed the Inquiry Officer that his representation dated 5.4.1999 Annexure-5 itself be treated as his show cause in the proceeding, whereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted report and considering such report the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-2 directing recovery of Rs. 5,60,784.00 the amount of shortage with further direction that petitioner shall not be entitled to any pension as his pension was fixed at Nil. Petitioner assailed the said order dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-2 by filing Interlocutory Application Nos. 5,60,784.00 the amount of shortage with further direction that petitioner shall not be entitled to any pension as his pension was fixed at Nil. Petitioner assailed the said order dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-2 by filing Interlocutory Application Nos. 3612 of 2001 and 4596 of 2001 in the pending writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6991 of 2000, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to assail the order dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-2 by filing the appeal. The appeal against order dated 25.7.2001 was considered and dismissed under orders dated 2.12.2002, Annexure-4 which order was also assailed by filing C.W.J.C.No. 965 of 2003 and the said writ petition was allowed under orders dated 15.7.2004, Annexure-11 whereunder appellate order dated 2.12,2002, Annexure-4 was quashed with direction to the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order. In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 15.7.2004, the appellate authority passed order dated 29.1.2005, Annexure-3 and thereunder the appeal was again dismissed without adverting to the submission of the petitioner that the charges for which the proceeding was initiated was belated and stale. 4. In spite of repeated indulgence granted under orders dated 4.12.2006, 15.5.2007 and 21.5.2008 the Board has not filed any counter affidavit, accordingly the matter has been heard without the benefit of the counter affidavit of the Board. 5. From the charge sheet as communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 27.2.1999, Annexure-1 itself it appears that the proceeding is about the shortage found in the store which was within the charge of the petitioner for the period between 1.5.1971 to 31.12.1971 and the shortage was discovered by the authorities of the Board as far back as on 29.11.1971 but the proceedings were initiated on 27.2.1999 even when the higher authorities of the Board including the Director, Accounts, Electrical Superintending Engineer were aware about such shortage right from the beginning as is evident from the letter of the Director, Accounts bearing letter No. 946 dated 14.4.1973 and of Superintending Engineer bearing letter No. 2971 dated 15.12.1973 which was also mentioned in the charge sheet as evidence to support the charge. Once the authorities discovered the shortage on 29.11.1971 and thereafter the Director, Accounts of the Board and Superintending Engineer concerned learnt about the same in 1973 as is evident from their letters dated 14.4.1973 and 15.12.1973 then there is no reasonable explanation for the Board not to initiate the proceeding against the petitioner soon after the discovery of the shortage or within a reasonable time thereafter learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the belated charge memo cannot be sustained to impose punishment has relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Bani Singh and another, Paragraph-4, wherefrom it appears that if there is no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in issuing the memo of charge then the proceeding should not be allowed to be taken to its logical end. Accordingly, appreciating the fact that present proceeding was initiated after about 28 years of the discovery of the shortage, I not only quash the original punishment order dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-2 but also the appellate order dated 29.1.2005, Annexure-3 as also the memo of charge dated 27.2.1999, Annexure-land direct the Board to pay the entire arrears of pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of his retirement as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from today. 6. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of.