Allowed

Rajendra Deo v. the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Patna HC23 Apr 2013CWJC/1014/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge set aside a cryptic and non-speaking appellate order rejecting a disciplinary appeal. The Court remitted the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order within four months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned appellate order dated 2.8.2005 is set aside and the matter remitted to the prescribed appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by a reasoned and speaking order within four months.

Rajendra Deo Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1014 of 2006

¶3

With

¶4

Interlocutory Application No. 2922 of 2013

¶5

====================================================== Rajendra Deo, son of late Debi Lal Deo, resident of Bangali Tola, Police Station Forbisganj, District Araria

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Bihar State Electricity Board appearing through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Police Station Kotwali, Town and District Patna.

¶9

The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Police Station Kotwali, Town and District Patna

¶10

The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Police Station Kotwali, Town and District Patna

¶11

The Elecl. Executive Engineer, Bhagalpur Urban Electric Supply Division, Police Station Mojahidpur, Town and District Bhagalpur

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

======================================================

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.S.Rekhi, Advocate

¶16

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, Advocate

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶19

6 23-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶20

The petitioner, a retired Electrical Executive Engineer of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (in short ‘Board’), has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned order/resolution dated 6.1.2004 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the respondent No.3 inflicting upon him the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1014 of 2006 (6) dt.23-04-2013

¶22

2 / 4

¶23

punishment of deduction of 5 percent pension, and for recording punishment of censure in the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1995-96, as also the impugned appellate order passed by the Chairman of the respondent Board and communicated vide letter dated 2.8.2005 (Annexure-8), issued under the signature of respondent no. 3, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment has been rejected.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding with respect to articles of charges framed against him. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying all the charges. Consequently, an Inquiring Officer was appointed for conducting the enquiry with respect to the charges framed against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Inquiring Officer finally submitted his enquiry report dated 13.6.2003 with a finding that charges against the petitioner were not found to have been proved. The enquiry report has been brought on record by the petitioner as Annexure-3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority though accepted the findings of the Inquiring Officer with respect to charge nos. 1 and 3, but he disagreed with the finding with respect to charge no.2, and after recording reasons for such disagreement he issued second show cause notice dated 6.8.2003 (Annexure-4) to the petitioner, and on cause being shown by the petitioner, by the impugned resolution/order dated 6.1.2004 (Annexure-6) the petitioner has been visited upon with the punishment, as indicated above.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.1014 of 2006 (6) dt.23-04-2013

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment dated 6.1.2004, preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the respondent Board, but that has been rejected mechanically by the impugned appellate order communicated through letter dated 2.8.2005 ( Annexure-8) issued under the signature of the respondent Joint Secretary to the petitioner.

¶28

It is vehemently argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the appellate authority has not at all applied its mind to the facts of the case and the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner, but in a mechanical manner by the impugned cryptic appellate order dated 2.8.2005 ( Annexure8) dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner, which according to him, is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside by this Court.

¶29

Though this writ petition was filed on 24.1.2006, and the matter remained pending for more than seven years, yet no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶30

After having heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition can be disposed of on a very short question. Admittedly, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned original order of punishment dated 6.1.2004 (Annexure-6), preferred an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority and that has been rejected by a most cryptic and non-speaking order dated 2.8.2005 (Annexure-8). On perusal of the impugned appellate order, this Court finds that neither any reason has been

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.1014 of 2006 (6) dt.23-04-2013

¶32

4 / 4

¶33

disclosed for rejection of appeal preferred by the petitioner nor the appellate authority has considered the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the impugned original order inflicting punishment upon him by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶34

For the reasons recorded above, the impugned appellate order dated 2.8.2005(Annexure-8) passed by the prescribed appellate authority and communicated to the petitioner under the signature of respondent Joint Secretary is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the prescribed appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. The prescribed appellate authority shall be obliged to consider and decide all the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner and shall further be obliged to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶35

Let the appeal of the petitioner be decided afresh by the prescribed appellate authority within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶36

The present writ application stands allowed to the extent, indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶37

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶38

Kanth/-

Rajendra Deo v. the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Deo 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

Shyam Bihari Bhatt Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Bilash Prasad Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Parmeshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Savita Devi and Anr. Vs the Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Chandan Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Verma Vs National Bank of Agriculture and