IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3231 of 1997 Ramyash Singh, son of Late Ram Prit Singh, village- Mohani, P.S. Bikramganj, P.O. Sheopur, District- Rohtas. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-1. 2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-1. 3. Shri J.P. Yadav, Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ...... Respondents. ----------- 07- 16.12.2008 Heard Mr. K.L. Shrivastava for the petitioner, and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh for the respondents. It arises out disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the Bihar State Electricity Board. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 2. A brief narration of facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Ranchi, during the period 15.7.1992 to 16.5.1994. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 29.7.1994 (Annexure-1), whereby six allegations were levelled against him. The 2 petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings, followed by enquiry report dated 3.4.1995 (Enclosure to Annexure-2). Charge Nos.2, 3 and 6 were not proved. Charge nos.1 and 5 were partially proved. Charge no.4 was fully proved. The petitioner was served with second show-cause notice dated 30.4.1996 (Annexure-2), wherein it was stated that, in view of the enquiry report, why should not he be dismissed from service, and the losses amounting to Rs.1,11,25,722/- be recovered from him. The relevant portion of the second show-cause notice is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “(ii) Why not maximum deduction permissible under law may be made from the amount, if any payable to him, consequent upon his dismissal, to partly recover the loss of Rs.1,11,25,722/- (Rupees one crore eleven lacs twenty five thousand seven hundred and twenty two) only caused by him through his personal acts of omission and commission. Failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter and action as proposed will be taken against him. Order:- Ordered that a signed copy of Resolution together with an authenticated copy of findings of the enquiring officer be forwarded to Shri Ram Yash Singh, Electrical Executive Engineer (under suspension), Board’s Hdqrs, Patna. “ 3 3. The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 10.6.1996 (Annexure-3). This was followed by the impugned order of dismissal dated 31.7.1996 (Annexure-4), whereby he has been dismissed from the services of the Board and it is further stated therein that he shall not paid his terminal benefits partly to make up for the losses caused to the Board. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “...Accordingly, Sri Ramyash Singh, Elecl. Executive Engineer (Under Suspension) Board’s Hdqrs., Patna, is awarded the following punishment: 1. He is dismissed from the services of the Board with immediate effect. 2. For causing such a huge pecuniary loss of about Rs.1.11 crore to the Board and committing fraud of the worst order, he will not be paid any terminal benefits to partly make up the loss caused by him.” 4. The petitioner preferred memorandum of appeal dated 31.8.1996 (Annexure-5), which has been dismissed by the Board. Hence this writ petition. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loss of Rs.1.11 4 crores to the Board was not the subject-matter of enquiry proceedings. The same figured for the first time in the second show-cause notice and, therefore, the petitioner had not the opportunity to meet this charge. He has also submitted that his appeal is still pending. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the effort to recover Rs.1.11 crores for the losses caused by acts of omission and commission attributable to the petitioner is consequential. He also submits that misappropriation is included in charge no.3. 7. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position is that charge nos.2, 3 and 6 were not proved, charge nos.1 and 5 were partially proved, and charge no.4 was fully proved. The learned disciplinary authority agreed with the findings. We, therefore, proceed accordingly. Therefore, there is no need to discuss charge nos.2, 3 and 6. 7.1) Charge no.1 in substance is that the petitioner did not carry out the instructions of the General Manager –Cum- Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-1, Ranchi, about the proper 5 handing over and taking over the charge from Mr. S.B. Bhattacharya, the out-going Assistant Store- keeper, to Anandi Kumar Singh, Junior Store- keeper, resulting in malfunctioning in Hatia Stores, it was mismanagement and non-completion of physical verification. Neither double locking of the main gate nor provision of armed security guard was made. 7.2) Charge no.5 reads as follows: Charge No.V: Asstt. Executive Engineer, Transmission Subdivision, Goelkera came to Hatia Store with departmental truck for collecting necessary construction materials for 20MVA Transformer at 132/33KV Grid Sub-station, Goelkera. On refusal of issue of materials by Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hatia, the Elecl. Superintending Engineer directed Shri Ram Yash Singh, Elecl. Executive Engineer vide Memo No.1827 dated 10.11.93 to go personally to Hatia stores and arrange issue of such materials through the committee so that the departmental truck may not return without materials. But despite such directions, Shri Singh did not care to comply with the order and as a result the work of Goelkera Grid Sub-station suffered due to his deliberate carelessness.” 7.3) Charge no. IV is that the petitioner did not take disciplinary action against Shri A.K. Singh, Junior Store-keeper, for carrying out his written instructions regarding stores 6 requisitions as a result of which important construction work of 132KV Kamdara-Gumla suffered. 8. It is thus evident that the learned disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the learned enquiry officer fully and issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why the punishment of dismissal be not inflicted on him, and the loss caused by his acts of omission and commission to the extent of Rs.1.11 crores be recovered from his terminal benefits. In view of the cause shown by him, the impugned order of punishment has been passed whereby he has been dismissed from service and he has been deprived of his terminal benefits to make up partly for the losses caused by him to the Board. The petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the departmental proceedings nor the finding leading to the order of dismissal. The scope of judicial review with respect to departmental proceeding is narrow and well-known. This Court has to satisfy itself that charge-sheet incorporating the allegations against the petitioner was served on him, he was afforded adequate opportunity to meet the same, the principles of natural justice were 7 observed, and the prescribed procedure was followed. The petitioner has not raised any grievance on these counts. I am also convinced on the basis of a perusal of the materials on record that the disciplinary proceedings do not seem to suffer from any such infirmity. We are equally convinced that the order of dismissal is appropriate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. Indeed the petitioner has not challenged the same. 10. We next pass on to the next question which has really been canvassed by the petitioner seriously. He submits that the alleged loss to the tune of Rs.1.11 crore was not the subject- matter of the charge, and has for the first time been mentioned in the second show-cause notice. It appears to me that charge no.3 has made a reference of such losses in general terms. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that charge no.3 has been held not to have been proved and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to take the same into consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents has also not been able to address this question at all in view of the limitations with which he is faced in this matter. In that 8 view of the matter, the second part of the order relating to partial recovery from the terminal benefits of the petitioner is hereby set aside. This part of the matter is remitted back to the respondent-Board to consider the question of quantification of losses to the Board caused by the acts of omission and commission attributable to the petitioner and held to have been proved during the course of enquiry. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The order of dismissal of petitioner from service is hereby upheld. The Board shall consider the question as indicated hereinabove. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of three months from today. No part of the dues of the petitioner still with the Board shall be paid to him which shall abide the decision of the Board. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak