IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4949 of 2003 GOPAL PRASAD, son of late Deep Narayan Prasad, resident of Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Road No. 8, P.S.-Jannuman Nagar, District-Patna. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.(Hereinafter referred to as Electricity Board). 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan., Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. ……..Respondents. ----------- 05. 10.07.2009 Petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the Bihar State Electricity Board. In a disciplinary proceeding he was charged for having made recommendations for grant of new electric connection in a premise which already was carrying and using in respect of another connection. In course of disciplinary proceedings evidence allegedly came pointing to the fact that the petitioner, Junior Engineer along with Assistant Engineer had inspected the premises and given a certificate for grant of new connection. Considering the defence which the petitioner had taken which inter alia was that the dues belong to the father and the new connection was sought by the son though they live in the same premises, technically there were two different premises was not accepted, he was accordingly found guilty and punished. Considering his superannuation to - 2 - be only a few month away the punishment was that his suspension was having been revoked. He would not be paid anything extra for that period. The punishment to which petitioner object is the recovery of the arrears which were due on the other connection amounting to about Rs. 97,000/- in installment of Rs. 5,000/- per month. These orders were affirmed in appeal and hence petitioner is before this Court. Principally two contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly in view of the fact which was supported by evidence on record that the premises were jointly inspected by the Assistant Engineer, who is superior Officer to the petitioner and the petitioner which made the recommendation for grant of new connection, both the Assistant Engineer and the petitioner should have been proceeded against, not preceded against the Assistant Engineer was discriminatory. Secondly it was submitted that for realization of the outstanding dues of about Rs. 97,000/- Board itself had already instituted Certificate Case against the defaulting consumers. Board could thus not realizing the said money from two source one in the Certificate proceedings from the consumer and two the same amount from the petitioner as well. Heard the parties, considering the counter affidavit and the arguments, with consent of parties, the - 3 - writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of Admission itself. So far as the point of discrimination is concerned, there is substance in what petitioner submits but unfortunately in my view, ground has been raised belatedly. This is like a plea of non-joinder of parties to the same cause of action. It is well established that such an objection has to be taken at the earliest. Regrettably though this objection was available to the petitioner, he never before the Authority except for the first time before this Court after having been punished in the departmental proceeding which order was affirmed in appeal. We are decade away from the initiation of the proceedings and such a belated plea now can not be permitted. Coming to the second. The fact that the Certificate Proceeding had been initiated is not denied. If that being so, it is clear that the Court can not benefit or make profit on account of realization of arrears from two sources one the Certificate Proceeding from the consumer itself and two from the petitioner. Having initiated certificate proceedings for recovery of the dues, it was for the Board to expedite the matter and expedite the same but having taken step of instituting certificate case it can not at the same time demand the same money for the same cause of action from the petitioner. The realization of this - 4 - amount is compensatory. It is not a penal imposition of penalty. Compensation can not be twice over for the same cause. Thus the penalty order which makes the petitioner liable to pay arrears amount of Rs. 97,000/- as mentioned in the penalty order is thus found to be vitiated and can not be supported in fact or in law. To that extent, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as affirmed in appeal is set aside. With these observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)