Civil Writ Petition No.6934 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6934 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10th May, 2011. Balbir Singh Sidhu ....Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Electricity Board & Another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.A.K.Walia Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Thiara Advocate for the respondents. * * * Augustine George Masih , J.(Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 08.10.2009 (Annexure P-11) vide which, the appeal of the petitioner has been partly allowed whereby, punishment of recovery of ` 1,19,400/- and stoppage of two annual increments without future effect has been reduced to recovery of ` 1,19,400/- and stoppage of one annual increment without future effect. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a show cause notice dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure P-1) was served upon the petitioner along with a charge-sheet wherein, the primary allegation was that due to fault in the line, at night, 6000 metres A.C.R wire was stolen and 15 poles, 8 cross arms and 40 pin insulators were got damaged. The petitioner did not attend to the phone call and therefore, loss to the tune of ` 1,19,400/- had occurred to the respondent-corporation. He contends that as a matter of fact, on the intervening night of 09-10.9.2006, a theft had taken place and an FIR Civil Writ Petition No.6934 of 2010 2 No.81 dated 11.09.2006 under Sections 379 and 411 IPC was registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo. An investigation was conducted wherein, the petitioner was found innocent and challan was presented. On the basis of the said challan, charges were framed against the four accused persons namely Kishore Kumar, Subhash Chander @ Safi, Ranjit Singh @ Raju and Rajesh Kumar vide order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure P-4). He contends that the allegations against the petitioner are without any basis and in support of this contention, he contends that the petitioner was not on duty on the said date nor has anything been supplied to the petitioner which would substantiate with the allegation against the petitioner with regard to his not attending the phone. Even the name of the persons, who had called up the petitioner to inform him, has not been mentioned. What has been mentioned is that a Sub Station Attendant had given him a call which the petitioner did not respond as his phone was switched off. He contends that the petitioner has been imposed a penalty for which he was not at all responsible. Accordingly, he prays for the writ petition to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. Counsel for the respondents submits that the loss, which has been occurred to the respondent-corporation, would not have so occurred had the petitioner attended the phone call or had not switched off his official mobile phone which was supplied to him. He further admits that the petitioner was neither on duty nor has any person being named who had made the call to the petitioner. He also admits that no inquiry has been held against the petitioner before imposing the penalty vide order dated 21.05.2008 Annexure P-6. He submits that in exercise of the discretionary power, the Appellate Authority has already taken into consideration the submission of Civil Writ Petition No.6934 of 2010 3 the petitioner and reduced the sentence. He accordingly, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that a theft had taken place on the intervening night of 09/10.09.2006. An FIR stood registered wherein, charges were framed against the four accused persons vide order dated 06/08/2007 passed by Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo (Annexure P-4). It has also not been disputed that during investigation, the petitioner was not found involved in the said theft. The petitioner was not on duty on the night when the theft had taken place. The name of the official, who had called up the petitioner to inform him about the tripping of the lines, has also not been mentioned in the charge-sheet and the allegations in the charge-sheet are too vague to be relied upon to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was in any manner negligent in performing his duties. That being so, the order dated 21.05.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Board cannot be sustained as also the impugned order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08/10/2009 (Annexure P-11) is hereby quashed. It goes without saying that the consequential reliefs to which the petitioner would be entitled, shall be granted/released to him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (Augustine George Masih) 10th May, 2011. Judge Seema-II