IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7695 of 2001 Meera Devi, W/o Late Jai Prakash Narain, resident of village- Deokali, Police Station- Pipra, District- Patna. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Director of Departmental Proceedings- cum- Enquiry Officer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, (Telecommunication), Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 7. The General Manager –cum- Chief Engineer, (Telecommunication), Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ..... Respondents. ----------- 09- 30.1.2009 Heard Mr. Rajeev Roy for the petitioner, and Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2001 (Annexure-23), passed by the respondent Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as „the Board‟), whereby he has upheld the order of dismissal passed against Jai Prakash Narain, the original petitioner (hereinafter referred to 2 as the „Employee‟), whereby he was dismissed from the services of the respondent-Board as Store-keeper. 2. It may be stated that the writ petition was preferred by the employee himself, but he died on 20.07.2001, during the pendency of the present proceedings, and his widow has been substituted as the present petitioner. 3. The employee was served with the charge-sheet dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure-7), whereby the following two charges were levelled against him: “1. When Sri R.K. Mishra, Senior Engineer (Telecom.) and Sri B.N. Chakravorty Electrical Executive Engineer (Telecom.) went to the Telecommunication store on 24.2.94, he prevented them from entering the store premises and started abusing & quarrelling with them and was about to assault them as it appeared from his action and gesture at the relevant moment. 2. He also used intemperate and indecent language in his application dated 25.2.1994 addressed to the ESE (Telecom.) Board‟s Head Qrs., Patna which tentamounts to indiscipline and unbecoming of a Board‟s servant.” Enquiry report was submitted against him and he was dismissed from service. He preferred departmental appeal which was allowed. The order of the learned disciplinary authority as well as 3 the enquiry report were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the learned Enquiry Officer for a fresh enquiry in accordance with law and the observations made in the appellate order. Aggrieved by the same, the employee preferred C.W.J.C. No.4668 of 1999 (Jai Prakash Narayan Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others), which was disposed of by order dated 23.3.2000 (Annexure-18), whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the learned enquiry officer was directed to submit his enquiry report in accordance with law and the observations made therein, and within the time frame indicated in the order. So far by way of background and is not of much relevance in the present case. 4. The learned enquiry officer submitted his fresh report on 31.5.2000 (Annexure-20), whereby he found the employee guilty of the two charges. By his order dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure- 1), the learned disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and dismissed the employee from service. His appeal has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this writ petition. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the 4 petitioner fairly submits that he is mindful of the constraints of the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, would not venture to challenge the findings of facts recorded by the learned enquiry officer. He, however, submits that the punishment meted out to the employee is disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges and calls for a sympathetic approach. He pleads for mercy in the given situation, namely, the late employee has left behind his widow and children including three daughters. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the punishment is consistent with the gravity of the proven charges. Determination of the quantum of punishment is essentially a function of the departmental authorities and, submitting for the sake of argument, even if the punishment meted out to the late employee calls for re- consideration, the same should be left to the authorities. 7. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. As stated hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the findings of facts recorded by the 5 learned enquiry officer and upheld by the disciplinary authority. This is not a court of appeal. The scope of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is well known. The jurisdiction is supervisory and this Court has to ensure that clearly formulated charges were served on the employee, he was afforded reasonable opportunity to rebut the charges, the prescribed procedure was followed, the principles of natural justice were observed, and the punishment meted out to the employee is proportionate to the gravity of the proven charges. Apart from the position that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the findings of facts in view of the constraints of writ jurisdiction, I have nevertheless gone into the findings of facts recorded by the learned enquiry officer. I am of the view that it is a well discussed enquiry report, and the findings of facts have been recorded after taking into account the entire evidence on record. It further appears to me that the prescribed procedure was followed and the principles of natural justice were observed. In view of the findings of facts recorded by the learned enquiry officer, I am left with no doubt 6 that the late employee was guilty of serious misconduct. He served punishment. 8. This takes me on to the question of quantum of punishment. I wish to make it perfectly plain that if the employee were alive, there may or may not have been the question of interference with the order of punishment. However, the demise of the employee and the extreme penalty of dismissal from service impels me to take a lenient view of the matter. I have noted the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the employee died on 20.7.2001, leaving behind his widow and children including three daughters. This state of affairs undoubtedly calls for a sympathetic consideration. This is not to deflect the course of justice by taking a unreasonably sympathetic view of the matter. On account of the God‟s intervention, the employee is already out of the system and it may not be appropriate to uphold the extreme punishment of dismissal to the detriment of the widow and the children. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter goes back to the learned appellate authority to re-determine the punishment to the employee. This Court states by way of a safe guide that he 7 shall ensure appropriate punishment to the late employee so that the heirs are not deprived of the benefits of his past services. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of three months from today. It will be open to the learned appellate authority to ensure an opportunity of hearing to the widow or a representative nominated by her, if deemed fit and proper. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/