IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2627 of 2001 SAMI AHMAD Son of Nazrul Hasan, resident of Mohalla- Maghalpura, Soi Ki Maszid, Patna City, P.S. Khajekala, Distt. & Town, Patna..... Petitioner Versus 1 .BIHAR STATE ELECT.BOARD through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna, Bihar. 2. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 3. Joint Secretary, Department of General Administration, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.... .... Respondents Advocate for the petitioner :- Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma & Mr. Azhar Kareem Siddiqui Advocate for the B.S.E.B.:- Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma & Mr. Jainendra Kumar Pushkar. ------------ 5 24-2-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Electricity Board. By the impugned order dated 20th March 1999 ( Annexure- 24) petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service as a typist-cum- clerk under Bihar State Electricity Board ( hereinafter referred to as ` the Board’). The order of punishment further specifies that he would not be entitled to any payment beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. On hearing the parties, this court finds that as per petitioner’s case his wife received injury on 10-7-1993. On the ground of taking her to Vellore for treatment out-side Patna the petitioner applied for a Medical advance for treatment out-side the State in May, 1994 and he was sanctioned such advance for an amount of Rs.74,000/- by Board’s Office order dated 19-10-94 (Annexure-6). - 2 - According to terms of sanction the advance was to be adjusted against the medical bills to be submitted, within a period of three months. If on adjustment of the advance balance remained to be refunded to the Board then that was to be realized from pay in easy instalments. There is no dispute that petitioner did not take his wife for treatment to Vellore or any other place outside the State. In June and July, 1995 notices were given to the petitioner by the Board reminding him to submit medical bills in relation to out-side treatment of his wife so that the advance could be adjusted. Ultimately, on 7-8-1995 by Annexure-12 petitioner replied to notice dated 29-7- 1995 and took the stand that he required only one month’s further time. If he went to Vellore then he would submit the medical bills otherwise he would return the medical advance. It appears that petitioner made some further correspondences but the aforesaid letter dated 7-9-95 contained in annexure-5 is an admitted document. By a letter dated 18-9-1995 (Annexure-13) the Board informed the petitioner that he had not submitted the medical bills within the period of one month sought by him and hence he should return the advance amount within a week or submit medical bills otherwise he would be suspended and subjected to disciplinary proceeding. When petitioner did not act as per annexure-13 then he was suspended on 2-11-95 and subjected to the disciplinary proceeding in which issue of not refunding medical advance and not going to Vellore for treatment were the subject matter of charges. From annexure-16 it appears that petitioner was released - 3 - from suspension on 26-9-1998 but ultimately on being found guilty of the charge in the departmental proceeding, he was given show cause notice and ultimately awarded punishment by the impugned order contained in annexure-24 which has already been noticed. His appeal was also dismissed by the competent authority by order dated 6-9- 1999 ( Annexure-25). The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure-24 as well as Annexure-25. As noticed, the facts clearly support the charge that medical advance was for treatment at Vellore. No such treatment out-side Patna took place and in spite of repeated notice petitioner did not refund the medical advance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such action of the petitioner was on account of heavy expenses required for treatment of his wife and she could not go to Vellore due to medical advice which required bed rest at Patna only. It was further submitted that in the facts of the case Board should have relaxed the rules and permitted adjustment of the advance from the monthly salary of the petitioner treating the advance for out-side treatment as advance for treatment at the local station. It was further submitted that even if the charges are found to be proved in substance, inference of fraud should not have been drawn against the petitioner and he should have been awarded only some minor punishment and not the punishment of compulsory retirement which affected his life. According to petitioner he is to retire at the age of 60 years in the month of January, 2012, therefore, he should be reinstated in service by awarding some other appropriate punishment except removal from - 4 - service. On considering the aforesaid submissions and after hearing learned counsel for the Board, this Court finds that the charges are established . So far as their factual aspects are concerned, the fact of financial irregularity in availing of a medical advance for out-side treatment but not actually using that money for that purpose and not refunding the advance even after notice, clearly amounts to financial irregularity. The substance of the charge is thus, found proved. The submission that this could not be deemed to be an act of indiscipline, fraud and gross-misconduct is also difficult to be accepted. Hence, this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the finding of the authorities that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. The other submission relating to punishment being shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges remains to be examined. The authorities of the Board even before initiating disciplinary proceeding gave opportunity to the petitioner to avail the treatment out-side Patna or to return the advance taken for that purpose. The petitioner took the stand initially that he will return the advance within one month but later he appears to have insisted that it should be returned only in instalment from salary. Such acts and the nature of charges found proved against the petitioner does not persuade this Court to hold that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The appellate authority in its order dated 6-9- 99 (Annexure-25) has taken the stand that it was on taking a - 5 - Naresh sympathetic consideration of his case, the punishment of compulsory retirement was chosen to be awarded. May be the appellate authority could have taken more lenient view but this Court does not find the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Hence, this court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)