Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2219 (RAJ)

Shriman Meena J. en. Jvvnl v. Chairman, JVVNL

2019-08-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- "(i) To exonerate the petitioner from the penalty of stopping one grade increment with cumulative effect, as has been done with the other authorities, as the petitioners mistake on G-Schedule is monofide or clerical mistake which was necessarily to be rectified at Accounts Officer, Dausa level who has intentionally not corrected the same. Also it was duty of the executing officer to go through facts of the site but there has not acted in proper way and intentionally verified the wrong bills of the contractor and thus brought financial loss to the department. The penalty awarded to the innocent petitioner be quashed. (ii) Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. The petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, JVVNL Sikrai, Geejgarh from 04/04/2007 to 21/08/2009. The electric lines at Sikrai Sub-Division of JVVNL suffered serious damages on account of weather conditions and it was to be repaired by the concerned team as per directions of the Superintending Engineer (O&M), JVVNL, Dausa on contract basis. The A.En. (O&M), Sikrai directed to survey the area under the supervision of the petitioner and to prepare G-Schedule to get this work done on contract basis and in compliance thereof, the petitioner prepared G-Schedule for maintenance & restoration of the lines, transformers, poles and cutting the trees etc. with removal of obstacles like bird nests etc. from the 11 KV feeders. The petitioner was having supervisory control over three 11 KV Feeders at Nohar Khorra, Ghumana Feeder, Jhangiria and he prepared G-Schedule only for the aforesaid three feeders. The petitioner submitted G-Schedules to his Assistant Engineer but in these G-Schedules, he mentioned Schedule No. 15.2.1 in the Column (c) and the number of removal of bird rests and other items were mentioned in Column No. 15(c). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that G-Schedule was pre-audited by the concerned Assistant Engineer, Sikrai and the petitioner could not have been attributed with any charge particularly when his rule was limited to survey all the concern ed feeders. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that G-Schedule was pre-audited by the concerned Assistant Engineer, Sikrai and the petitioner could not have been attributed with any charge particularly when his rule was limited to survey all the concern ed feeders. He submits that the enquiry was conducted by the respondents and charges were framed out of which the petitioner was absolved of all other charges by the enquiry officer itself and only charge No. 3 was found to be proved. Counsel further submits that no financial loss was caused by the petitioner and the petitioner's role of survey could not have been taken to improper verification of the work done in the three feeders. Counsel further submits that the limited role of petitioner for surveying the feeders in question absolves him of all the charges and the respondents have committed an illegality in punishing the petitioner by passing the impugned order of stopping one grade increment with cumulative effect. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the punishment order and has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in "Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited" : 2009 (8) SCC 310 , more particularly on Para 14 which reads as follows:- "Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the repudiation of claim was fully justified because at the time of submission of the proposal form, the respondent had made a false declaration that he was possessing sound health and had not undergone any treatment in the last 12 years and taking the facts disclosed as correct the policy was issued. It was urged that a mediclaim policy is issued solely on the basis of the facts disclosed and the representation made by an insured in the proposal form filled in and submitted by him without subjecting the insured to any medical tests." 5. Learned counsel for respondents has also relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of "Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Abrar Ali" reported in 2017 (4) SCC 507 , more particularly Para 15 which provides as under:- "15. In Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , this Court held as follows: "12. Abrar Ali" reported in 2017 (4) SCC 507 , more particularly Para 15 which provides as under:- "15. In Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , this Court held as follows: "12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the inquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the inquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion: (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." 6. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that though there seems to be some gray areas in the findings given by the respondents but going into details and factual matrix in the limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no interference is warranted in the present matter in light of the fact that a broader enquiry was conducted against so many persons of the department and the factual matrix was broadly a combined allegation against team of the respondents operating in the area. Pointing out of trivial irregularities by counsel for the petitioner shall be of no consequences as broadly the disciplinary enquiry as well as the order of punishment is in accordance with law and the punishment given of stopping of one grade increment with cumulative effect is justified. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications including stay application stand disposed of.