IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.890 of 2008 ============================================= Baliram Singh, s/o- Shri Bhubneshwar Singh, r/o- Jagdish Pur, Baghnagari, P.s.- Sakara, District- Muzaffarpur at present residing at Mohalla Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha Mr. Mithilesh Kr.Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar ============================================= 4 19-09-2011 Present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) to set aside the order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority (Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board) as communicated by the respondent No. 4 under letter bearing Memo No. 929 dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure-8/1). Petitioner has also prayed that the findings of the Enquiry Officer recorded in his enquiry report dated 6.6.2003 (Annexure-5) be declared illegal and inoperative. He has also prayed for setting aside the Board’s resolution No. 668 dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner was held guilty and inflicted punishment of Censure as also withholding of annual increment for three years with cumulative effect. 2 Relevant matrix of facts are as follows: During the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer in Bihar State Electricity Board (for short “ the Board”) and was posted in Electric Supply Sub-Division, Mahua in the district of Vaishali. By a Board’s resolution No. 2215 dated 15.12.2001 (Annexure-1), the departmental proceeding was initiated against him for his alleged omissions and commissions in due discharge of duties during the period he was posted there. Gravamen of charge was that M/S Mahua Cooperative Cold Storage had deposited 14 cheques of diverse amount(s) of the Vaishali District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd towards payment of energy bills and the said cheques were deposited with the Central Bank of India, Mahua where the Department had an account but the same were not cleared and credited in the account of the Board for more than 700 days. The petitioner, while serving as the Assistant Electrical Engineer at the said Sub-Division, did not take any step to ensure that the proceeds of the said cheques are credited in the Board’s bank account promptly as a result whereof, the Board had to suffer pecuniary loss. The charge was thus that the petitioner failed to exercise proper supervision and control over his subordinate Cashier(s) who functioned during the relevant period under him to ensure timely preparation of Bank reconciliation statement resulting wrongful loss to the Board and corresponding gain to the consumer. In response to the aforesaid article of charge, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 6.9.2002 (Annexure-2) denying the allegations. Subsequently, a written argument on his behalf was 3 also filed on 19.4.2003 (Annexure-3). The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer whereat documents were produced and witnesses were examined. The petitioner participated therein and adduced oral evidence besides producing the documents/exhibits. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted the enquiry report on 6.6.2003 (Annexure-5) wherein it was found and held that the charge that the omissions and commissions on the part of the delinquent petitioner caused pecuniary loss to the Board and thus the petitioner acted in a manner unbecoming of public servant and misconduct was proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on a consideration of the enquiry report by a communication dated 6.9.2003 (Annexure-4), issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner on the proposed punishment. The copy of the enquiry report was also annexed therewith. Petitioner filed his response to the said show cause notice on 10.11.2003 (Annexure-6). On a consideration of the materials on record including the cause shown by the petitioner, the respondent authority passed a resolution dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure-7) whereby he was afflicted with the aforesaid punishments. Feeling aggrieved by the said resolution inflicting punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure-8). The respondent Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal which was communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 929 dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure-8/1). The petitioner thereafter approached this Court seeking aforesaid relief(s). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Board. A counter affidavit has been filed 4 on behalf of the respondents which is part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, contended that the appellate order is wholly cryptic and does not set out reasons for not accepting the issues raised in the memo of appeal. Petitioner has termed the said appellate order as mechanical. Criticizing the appellate order, it is contended that the Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal, was exercising a quasi-judicial jurisdiction. It was, thus, incumbent upon him to pass a reasoned order dealing with the issues raised in the Memo of Appeal. In order to highlight the requirements of the order passed by the Appellate Authority in a departmental proceeding, the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Narindra Mohan Arya versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713. It is further contended that the enquiry report is perverse and as such the same is also required to be interfered with. In the same vein, it has been argued that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, in that view of the matter, should also be interfered with. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders passed by the respondents. It is contended that the impugned actions have been taken against the petitioner and several others officers against whom prima facie charge was proved. Learned counsel further contended that this Court, having found serious financial illegalities/irregularities having been committed by the officers of the Board, directed for an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) which was accordingly 5 carried out by the C.B.I. whereafter the departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and several other officers/employees of the Board against whom the criminal charges were found proved. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has although argued that the enquiry report is perverse but he has failed to demonstrate perversity therein. On perusal of the enquiry report (Annexure-5), it appears that the same was conducted in a proper manner wherein adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to demonstrate his innocence. Relevant documents such as copy of the statement of account in the Central Bank of India, Mahua as well as copies of the cheques, list and receipt of remittance etc were produced. As many as three witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the Department. Witness on behalf of the petitioner was also produced. On a close scrutiny of the enquiry report, it appears that there is no perversity therein. The submission of the petitioner is, therefore, unsustainable in law. It further appears that the authority in the decision making process ensured that appropriate opportunity at every stage is granted to the delinquent petitioner which was utilized by him. The petitioner submitted his explanation (Annexure-2) followed by written argument (Annexure-3) which was duly taken note of by the Enquiry Officer. On submission of enquiry report (Annexure-5), an opportunity to submit his explanation on the proposed punishment was also afforded to the petitioner. While doing so, the respondents had also enclosed the enquiry report 6 enabling the petitioner to submit his effective reply thereon. The said opportunity was utilized by the petitioner who filed his reply (Annexure-6) which was considered and the impugned resolution as contained in Annexure-7 was passed. This Court, therefore, does not find any legal flaw in the decision making process up to the stage when the punishments were inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the appellate order is a non-speaking order. It does measure up to the requirement of law and requires interference. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Narinder Mohan Arya (supra). It is pointed out with reference to the notings in the file (Annexure-9) that on a consideration of all relevant factors including the fact that petitioner was posted at the relevant Sub-Division for a lesser number of days (421 days) than what was disclosed in the article of charge (768 days) as also non-posting of an Assistant Engineer, Revenue for the Sub-Division in question, the work load on the petitioner was heavy who was required to monitor remittance of such collection to the Bank or to the Division as the case may be and to keep liaison with the Bank in order to ensure that revenue collection deposited in the Bank is remitted to the Patna daily for credit to the account of the Board. The petitioner thus merits imposition of lesser punishment in the shape of withholding of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The said note of the Secretary was upturned on the ground that there is no reasonable basis therefor. Learned counsel, in this regard, referred to the memo of appeal (Annexure-8) in order to demonstrate that several issues of fact and law was/were 7 raised therein. Going by the notings in the file (Annexure-9), it appears that the view/decision taken therein by the respondent Appellate Authority does not set out reasons therefor, particularly, when the authorities below him while bestowing consideration on the Appeal, for reasons cited therein, recommended for a lesser quantum of punishment to be inflicted on the petitioner. While exercising the appellate order, the respondent appellate authority was exercising quasi-judicial function. Decision taken by the Appellate Authority on the appeal must reflect proper application of mind and reasons in support thereof. This is deemed incumbent when the order is subject to scrutiny, when challenged by a Court of law. Reason in support of the order prevents arbitrariness action on the part of the authority exercising quasi-judicial function/jurisdiction. On going through the notings made in the file (Annexure-9), this Court is convinced that the view taken by the Appellate Authority does not set out reasons therefor. It can thus be termed as cryptic. This Court is not aware whether along with forwarding letter dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure-8/1) informing the petitioner about rejection of his appeal, aforesaid extract of the relevant file was attached or not. Even if Annexure-9 (consideration of appeal in the file) is taken into account, in my view, the order passed by the respondent Appellate Authority does not measure up to the requirement of law. This Court is thus satisfied that the Appellate Order is required to be interfered with and set aside. I order accordingly. While doing so, this Court would remit the matter back to the respondent Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and disposal 8 of the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the said respondent/authority. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)