HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 1646 of 2002. Decided on: 2.7.2008. R.K. Sood ……… Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja, J: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Secretary, H.P. State Electricity Board) and for quashing of inquiry report, dated 10.2.1994, on the grounds that these are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer and he was charge-sheeted under the rules on two grounds. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority, vide its impugned order, dated 28.5.1994, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent and careless in the performance of his duties and these charges have _________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. been proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, it was decided to impose minor penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of imposing penalty, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard and gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the Inquiry Officer had not concluded that both the charges as against the petitioner stood proved and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority came to a wrong conclusion that these charges stood proved and imposed the penalty arbitrarily, which is not commensurate with the charges proved as against the petitioner. It was submitted that in so far as the second charge is concerned in regard to restoration of the electricity, the order passed by the Executive Engineer was clear that in case of non-payment of the charges, the electricity was to be disconnected but since it was already disconnected by the petitioner, he had restored the same and, therefore, he had not mis-conducted himself. It was also submitted that no financial loss had been caused to the Department and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned order for the reasons given therein. A perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer shows that there were two charges as against the petitioner. The first charge was that the petitioner committed gross irregularity while sending the meter reading of the meter installed in the premises of M/s S.R. Forgings Ltd. and he sent a report of meter reading as ‘Nil’ though the factory was in operation and the meter was found in running condition. The second charge as against the petitioner was that he had committed serious lapses in disconnection and reconnection of the meter installed in the premises, though the party had failed to deposit the arrears and the reading of the Firm was obtained through the supporting staff which was in violation of the Standing Instructions issued. The Inquiry Officer in his report had concluded that wrong reading conveyed by the Officer does not appear to be intentional action of the Officer and only appears to be due to carelessness of the Officer. It was held that no financial loss had been caused to the organization, however, it was observed that the Officer should have conveyed the reading faithfully. It was observed that conveying of the ‘Nil’ consumption could result in wrong projection of energy loss as energy consumed is not accounted for anywhere. It was also observed that the power to M/s S.R. Forgings Ltd. was initially temporarily disconnected, but the same was restored in favour of the Company without realizing the part payment, as ordered by the Executive Engineer. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that since the connection had already been disconnected and no order had been passed by the Executive Engineer for disconnection before the fixed date, therefore, the petitioner restored the supply though without realizing the installment and monthly bill as ordered by the Executive Engineer. We are mentioning these facts since the plea was raised on this ground that though the facts are not required to be re-appreciated by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction. In case there was any doubt, the petitioner could have sought the permission of the Executive Engineer or clarification from him if the connection was to be restored since it has already been disconnected. The above reference has been made to the report of the Inquiry Officer since he had not concluded that the charges were not proved but he had given different reasons, namely, there was negligence on the part of the petitioner, there was no financial loss to the Organization and, therefore, it was sought to be interpreted that these charges did not stand proved. These are findings of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority, which call for no reappraisal, but the facts mentioned clearly show that the charges stood proved as against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority had concluded that the petitioner was negligent and careless in the performance of his duties, which charges stood proved against him and those findings do not call for an interference by this Court. In so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider as to what penalty should be imposed upon a delinquent official and it is not for this Court to consider as to what penalty should have been imposed. This Court can exercise its jurisdiction only in case, in conducting the inquiry, the principles of natural justice had not been followed or while imposing penalty, there is no co-relation to the charges proved and the penalty imposed, which can be termed as excessive keeping in view the charges. Thus, it is for the Disciplinary Authority which is to consider as to what penalty should be imposed and the penalty imposed cannot be said to be so excessive so as to call for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, it follows that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner and the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), July 2, 2008. (TILAK) Judge.