Partly allowed

Baliram Singh v. the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Patna HC19 Jul 2012L.P.A/1873/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed an appeal against a departmental punishment order. The court quashed the withholding of three increments due to lack of specific proof of financial loss, retaining only the censure and directing salary payment.

What did the court decide?

Punishment of withholding three increments set aside; censure confirmed; appellant directed to be paid salary difference within four months.

Baliram Singh Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1873 of 2011 In

¶2

Civil Writ	Jurisdiction Case No.	890 of 2008
================== 1. Baliram Singh aged ab of Jagdish Pur, Baghnaga	================== out 52 years S/o Shri Bhu ri, Police Station- Sakara (Petitio Versus	================== bneshwar Singh Resident , District- Muzaffarpur. ner).... .... Appellant/s
1. The Bihar State Electr Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Road, Patna.	icity Board through its C State Electricity Board,	hairman, Vidyut Bhawan Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
3. The Secretary, Bihar Road, Patna.	State Electricity Board,	Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
4. The Joint Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. ==================	Bihar State Electricity ==================	Board, Vidyut Bhawan, .... .... Respondent/s ==================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s	: Mr. Ratan Prasad Mr. Raja Ram M	Sinha, and ishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos.	1 to 4 : Mr. Vinay Kirti Mr. Akhileshwar Mr. Vijay Kumar	Singh, Singh and Verma, Advocates.
================== CORAM: HONOURABL and HONOURABL	================== E THE CHIEF JUSTICE E MR. JUSTICE AHSAN	================== UDDIN AMANULLAH

¶3

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶4

7. 19-07-2012 This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 19^th September 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 890 of 2008.

¶5

The matter at dispute is the punishment of „Censure‟ and „withholding of three increments with cumulative effect‟ imposed upon the appellant-an Electrical Engineer in the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the “Board”)

¶6

The challenge to the said order of punishment before

¶7

Patna High Court LPA No.1873 of 2011 (7) dt.19-07-2012

¶8

2 / 6

¶9

the learned single Judge has failed. However, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of the appellate authority and remitted the departmental appeal preferred by the appellant to the appellate authority. Pending this Appeal, the appellate authority has reconsidered the appeal as directed by this Court. The Chairman of the Board has rejected the said appeal. The decision had been communicated to the appellant under cover of the letter dated 23^rd December 2011. The said order has been challenged by the appellant by filing Interlocutory Application No. 3950 of 2012.

¶10

The departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant- an Assistant Electrical Engineer in the respondentBihar State Electricity Supply Division, Mahua, DistirctVaishali, for the act of misconduct amounting to negligence. It was alleged that for the period of March 1991 to May 1992, the appellant failed to ensure that the bank statement was reconciled, as a result several cheques offered by the consumers and deposited in the bank were not credited to the account of the Board. Thus the Board suffered the loss of interest for the period ranging from 18 to 768 days. After holding the enquiry, under order dated 25^th May 2004 made by the disciplinary authority, the appellant was held guilty of the said act of negligence. The appellant was visited with the punishment of „Censure‟ and „withholding of three increments with cumulative effect‟.

¶11

As recorded hereinabove, the said order was challenged by the appellant before the appellate authority, the Chairman of the Board. The appellate authority has, under his order dated 18^th November 2006, rejected the said appeal. The challenge to the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority has

¶12

Patna High Court LPA No.1873 of 2011 (7) dt.19-07-2012

¶13

3 / 6

¶14

failed before the learned single Judge. However, the learned single Judge has set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority. The appellate authority has, after remand, upheld the order of punishment as recorded hereinabove.

¶15

Learned advocate Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant was an Assistant Electrical Engineer and not an Accountant. He has submitted that it is the Accountant or the Cashier who receives the payment from the consumers against the energy bills and deposits the same in the bank. If at all the Board had suffered any loss, it was not on account of any lapse on the part of the appellant. It is the Accountant or the Cashier who should have reconciled the bank statement and ensured that the cheques deposited by the Board were duly credited to its account. If at all the Board has suffered any loss it may be attributable to the Accountant or the Cashier but not to the appellant who is an electrical engineer.

¶16

Learned advocate Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh has appeared for the Board. He has contested the Appeal. He has submitted that the appellant although was an Assistant Electrical Engineer, being the head of the Sub–Division, was in over all charge of the administration of the Sub Division. The accounts being part of administration, it was he who should have ensured that the cheques received from the consumers were deposited in the bank regularly and that the bank issued reconciliation statement every month. Evidently, the appellant had failed to perform his duty with due diligence. The amount had not been credited in the account of the Board for period ranging from 18 to

¶17

Patna High Court LPA No.1873 of 2011 (7) dt.19-07-2012

¶18

4 / 6

¶19

768 days. As alleged, the Board suffered loss of interest over the said amount for as many days.

¶20

The memorandum of charge issued on 15^th December 2001 contains an allegation against the appellant that although the appellant was Sub-Divisional head, he failed to ensure reconciliation of the bank statement. As many as 14 cheques received from one particular consumer, M/s Mahua CoOperative Cold Storage Ltd. drawn on the Vaishali District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Mahua were not credited to the account of the Board. The said delay had resulted into the loss to the Board. The said allegation was denied by the appellant. The appellant being an Assistant Electrical Engineer, he was not incharge of the accounts section and that it was the duty of the Accountant or the Cashier to deposit the cheques in the bank and to ensure that the bank credited the said amount to the account of the Board. He categorically denied that the Board had suffered any loss as alleged.

¶21

We have perused the charge sheet. Although, it is alleged that on account of late credit of the cheques the Board had suffered loss, the allegation, in our opinion, is baseless. Although, the appellant had categorically denied that the Board had suffered any loss and although there was a report that the consumers had paid the delayed payment charges so that the Board did not suffer any loss, the Enquiry Officer has not recorded specific finding about the loss suffered by the Board. In absence of a precise charge and a specific finding of the monetary loss suffered by the Board, the only charge that can be held to have been proved against the appellant is that of negligence. Although the appellant may be right that he being an Engineer was not in-charge of the

¶22

Patna High Court LPA No.1873 of 2011 (7) dt.19-07-2012

¶23

5 / 6

¶24

accounts section of the Sub-Division; but being the SubDivisional head, he was in over all charge of the Sub-Division. We do not suppose that the appellant being the Sub-Divisional head could deny his responsibility totally.

¶25

We, therefore, hold that the only charge proved against the appellant is that of negligence. For the said act of negligence, the punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect is too harsh and calls for interference. Ordinarily, this Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not interfere with the quantum of punishment or would not decide the appropriate punishment. The facts of the present case calls for such interference.

¶26

As we have noticed, the alleged incidence occurred as far back as during the months of March 1991 to May 1992. Although, once this Court had remitted the matter to the appellate authority, the Chairman of the Board, for reconsideration, although there is a noting of the Joint Secretary to the effect that the Board had not suffered any loss, the same has not been taken into consideration. We believe that no purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed upon the appellant.

¶27

For the aforesaid reason, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 19^th September 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 890 of 2008 is set aside. C.W.J.C No. 890 of 2008 is allowed to the extent the appellant has been visited with the punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. The order of punishment dated 25^th May 2004 passed by the Board (Annexure 7 to the writ

¶28

Patna High Court LPA No.1873 of 2011 (7) dt.19-07-2012

¶29

6 / 6

¶30

petition) is set aside to the extent the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect is imposed upon the appellant. The punishment of „Censure‟ to be entered in the confidential report of the year 1991 to 1993 is confirmed.

¶31

In view of this order, the appellant will be paid the amount of difference in salary within four months from today. In the event, the Board fails to pay the amount of difference in salary within four months as directed, commencing from 1^st December 2012, the Board will be liable to pay interest over such amount at the rate of 8% per annum.

¶32

The Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the respondents forthwith.

¶33

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶34

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶35

Prakash/-

Baliram Singh v. the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Singh v. the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Dr.Mahesh Chandra Ray Sharma

The Bihar State Housing Board Vs Shashi Kumar Sinha and Ors.

Arbind Kumar Jha Vs the Lalit Narayan Mithila Univ

Danial Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Smt.Sandhya Prasad