Basant Kumar Meshram Vs Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1787

¶3

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 618 of 2023

¶7

1 - Basant Kumar Meshram S/o Late Shri Domaji Meshram Aged About 63 Years Retired From The Post Of Additional Chief Engineer, Raipur Area Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Danganiya Raipur.

¶11

2 - General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Danganiya Raipur.

¶12

3 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sibasish Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate

¶16

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

12/01/2026

2

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :-

¶21

“10.1- The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside appeal order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the General Manager CSPDCL Annexure P/1.

¶22

10.2- The, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside departmental Inquiry order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the General Manager CSPDCL Annexure P/2.

¶23

10.3- The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favor of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.

¶24

Facts of the case :- The petitioner, who served as Additional Chief Engineer with CSPDCL at Jagdalpur and retired on 28.02.2021, had an unblemished service record until a show cause notice dated 31.08.2016 was issued by the Executive Director (HR), CSPDCL, Raipur, enclosing articles of charge and calling for a reply, which the petitioner duly submitted on 16.09.2016 along with all relevant documents. During his tenure, the petitioner discharged his duties with utmost sincerity, including conducting departmental inquiries against subordinate engineers, which itself negated Charge No. 2. A comprehensive inquiry report dated 05.11.2020 categorically concluded that Charge No. 1 involved no financial loss or wrongful gain, leading to modification of the charge by omitting allegations of financial misconduct, and further observed that the petitioner’s reply to Charge No. 2 was worthy of consideration; however, despite issuance of the charge-

¶25

3

¶26

sheet in March 2016, the proceedings were kept pending for over four years, reflecting arbitrariness. After retirement, while TA bills for 13 months were released on 09.03.2022, dues for the remaining 7 months remain unpaid. Notwithstanding the inquiry findings absolving the petitioner of financial misconduct, an impugned order dated 21.10.2021 was passed withholding 5% of the petitioner’s pension for one year on a temporary basis, amounting in effect to an unlawful monetary recovery. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 11.03.2022 to the Chairman, CSPDCL; however, the appeal was dismissed on 06.09.2022 by the General Manager, CSPDCL—the very same authority who had passed the original punishment order—by merely reiterating the earlier order without addressing the petitioner’s grievances, rendering the appellate decision vitiated in law as the disciplinary and appellate authorities were impermissibly the same.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while posted as Additional Chief Engineer at Jagdalpur under CSPDCL, rendered an unblemished service until his retirement on 28.02.2021 and was served with a show cause notice dated 31.08.2016 containing two charges, to which a detailed reply was duly submitted on 22.09.2016. It is contended that Charge No. 1 alleging financial misconduct on account of sanctioning his own TA bills is wholly misconceived, as under Clause 2.5 of the applicable CSPDCL Rules, in situations of urgency and nonavailability of the higher authority, the immediate lower authority is

¶28

4

¶29

empowered to accord sanction subject to post-facto approval, and the petitioner had acted strictly within such delegated authority owing to the prolonged absence of the then Chief Engineer; moreover, the comprehensive inquiry report dated 05.11.2020 categorically concluded that no financial loss or wrongful gain was caused by the petitioner, leading to modification of the charge by deleting allegations of financial misconduct. With respect to Charge No. 2, it is submitted that the petitioner had in fact conducted inquiries against subordinate engineers and actively participated in departmental proceedings, fully discharging his responsibilities, which was acknowledged in the inquiry report by observing that the petitioner’s reply was worthy of consideration. Learned counsel further submits that despite submission of reply in September 2016, the disciplinary proceedings were kept pending for over four years in an arbitrary and prejudicial manner, and even after the petitioner’s retirement, an impugned order dated 21.10.2021 was passed directing withholding of 5% of the petitioner’s pension for one year on a temporary basis, which in effect amounts to an unlawful monetary recovery despite the clear finding of absence of financial misconduct. It is lastly urged that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner on 11.03.2022 before the Chairman, CSPDCL, was dismissed on 06.09.2022 by the General Manager, CSPDCL, who was himself the disciplinary authority and author of the original punishment order, by merely reiterating the earlier order without addressing the petitioner’s

¶30

5

¶31

grievances, thereby vitiating the appellate order as being contrary to settled principles of law that the disciplinary and appellate authorities cannot be the same, therefore, the order impugned may liable to be quashed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State submits that the punishment order was imposed upon the petitioner pursuant to a duly conducted departmental inquiry, whereby a penalty of withholding 5% of the petitioner’s regular pension for a period of one year on a temporary basis was ordered. It is further contended that the said penalty was limited in duration and purely temporary in nature, and that with the passage of time, the period of one year has long since expired; consequently, after a lapse of nearly two years, the impugned order has exhausted its operation and has become redundant and there is no merit for deciding the petition.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost care.

¶34

This Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in entertaining the present writ petition. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 21.10.2021 was only of a temporary nature, namely withholding of 5% of the regular pension for a period of one year, and it is not in dispute that the said period has already expired long back. In view of the limited and time-bound nature of the punishment and the efflux of time, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit one for

¶35

6

¶36

exercise of writ jurisdiction at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

However, it is clarified that if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to restoration and payment of the withheld 5% of his regular pension and the same has not been released by the authorities, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again by way of an appropriate petition in accordance with law.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

Certified Copy as per rules.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Saxena

Basant Kumar Meshram v. Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Kumar Meshram v. Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Sharma Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

Sampat Ram Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kunal Kashyap Vs State Govt. of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Subhadra Bhosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjeevan Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pardeshi Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh