IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8609 of 2004 Ram Lakshaman Prasad aged about 47 years, son of Sri deoraj Prasad resident of Village- Kansara, P.S. Makhdumpur District- Jehanabad. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman vidyut Bhawan Patna. 2. The Chairman, the Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan Patna. ----------- 8 05.07.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent Electricity Board. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2002 as contained in Memo No. 2559 issued under the signature of respondent Secretary of the Electricity Board by which the petitioner was awarded three punishments which is as follows:- 1. Censured with entry into ACR for the year 2001-2002. 2. Four annual increments have been withheld with mulative effects. 3. Nothing other than subsistence will be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension. No increment will be allowed for this period. However period of suspension will be treated as duty for 2 post retirement benefit. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the Resolution no. 919 dated 25.03.2003 by which the statutory appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner, working as a Junior Engineer, Jamui, in collusion and conspiracy with his superior officers and others, harassed the consumers by various methods, only with a view to receive illegal gratification/bribe and in order to put pressure upon the consumers, he got removed the wire and the electric poles. It appears that about 21 villagers made complaint against the petitioner which led to the initiation of the proceeding when four charges were framed against the petitioner, vide resolution no. 2251 dated 20.12.2001 and Sri Capt. S.N. Verma, Chief Engineer-Cum-General Manager, Central Electrical Supply Area, Patna was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Four charges were as follows:- Firstly, on 30.04.2000, the transformer had been burnt but on the date of enquiry, the bills were supplied and the money was demanded for fixing the new transformer. 3 Secondly, the petitioner demanded Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per consumer, for supply of the electricity, otherwise it was conveyed that the electricity will not be supplied. Thirdly, when the villagers met the petitioner complaining non-supply of electricity, the petitioner used to convey that due to non-payment of the money demanded by him, three poles were removed along with the wire. Fourthly, during the Electricity Vigilance enquiry, it was found that without taking money, the petitioner did not use to do any work of the villagers and openly used to demand bribe. The charge memo as contained in Annexure-3 reflects that the petitioner, in pursuance to the supply of the charge, submitted his show cause on 13.05.2002 denying all the four charges and specifically alleging that the Dy. S.P. maliciously claimed that the villagers have made the complaint. The Inquiry Officer, after examining the Dy. S.P., who had examined only one villager, Awadesh Kumar, came to the conclusion that the charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 were found proved. The Inquiring Officer found that the charge no.4, of non-redressal of the grievances of the villagers 4 without taking money/bribe was not specific, hence that was not found proved. It appears that vide Resolution No. 2251 dated 20.12.2001, the disciplinary authority, on the basis of proved charges, awarded four punishments, as stipulated above. The petitioner challenged the punishment order and preferred an appeal but during the pendency of the appeal, he challenged the punishment order before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5149 of 2004 which was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Forum to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months by speaking order. The Appellate Authority vide Resolution No. 919/03 dismissed the appeal on the ground that though, the original complainants were not examined, but they informed the Enquiry Officer that they are unable to come to Patna to depose. Accordingly, the allegations were found proved during enquiry and the order of punishment was issued. Hence, the Appellate Authority did not interfere with the punishment order and the Appeal was accordingly dismissed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge memo reflects that department relied upon 5 the evidence of 22 witnesses, out of which only Dy. S.P., Md. Usman was examined by the Enquiry Officer but the 14 villagers, who were the original complainants, admittedly did not turn up before the Enquiry Officer, hence, it is submitted that the Enquiry Officer without any evidence, arrived at the conclusion of finding of three charges being proved against the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of punishment as contained in Annexure-7 and the Appellate order as contained in Annexure- 10, do not reflect the application of mind as neither the charges were specifically discussed nor the evidences which persuaded the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved, have been deliberated. It is further contended that the Appellate order suggests that in spite of the fact that the specific stand was taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, that none of the villagers were examined, the order of punishment was not interfered with. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Electricity Board submits that the Dy. S.P., who examined the villagers, was examined and he supported the charges 6 against the petitioner. Moreover, during the vigilance enquiry, the charges were found to be prima facie true against the petitioner, which led to the institution of the criminal case in which the petitioner has been charge sheeted and the trial is still pending. It is also submitted by Mr. Singh that the order of punishment is not as such that it could be interfered in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction as this Court is not exercising the appellate jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the petitioner was given a proper hearing, hence the principles of natural justice has not been denied to the petitioner. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court is of the view that all the four charges were framed on the basis of the complaint made by the villagers. The non- examination of all the 14 villagers, who were made witnesses in the article of charge, definitely deprived the Enquiry Officer in arriving at the conclusion that the charges have been proved. It appears from the enquiry report, as contained in Annexure-5, that the Dy.S.P., during enquiry has admitted that he only examined one Awadesh Kumar, hence, he has not examined the rest 13 witnesses himself. Moreover, from 7 the show cause of the petitioner, it appears that he alleged mala fide against the Dy. S.P., at the initial stage. Hence, the enquiry report as well as the orders of punishment appears to be perverse as they are contrary to evidence on record. It further appears that neither the order of punishment (as contained in Annexure- 7) nor the Appellate order (as contained in Annexure-10) reflect the application of mind as neither the charges nor any evidence were discussed, which persuaded the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment. The non-examination of any witness certainly vitiates the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and as well as the disciplinary authority, hence, this Court is constrained to quash the order of punishment as contained in Annexure-7 as well as the Appellate order as contained in Annexure-10. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of consequential financial benefits which should be paid to him within a period of four weeks of receipt/production of a copy of the orders. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)