IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3275 of 2006 DINESH SHARMA Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELEC.BOARD &OR ----------- 3 4.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of punishment dated 25.2.2002 contained in ananexure-2. The punishment order is minor in nature because one increment without cumulative effect was ordered to be withheld along with a warning to be recorded in the service book of the petitioner. This order of punishment has come to be passed based on a show cause which was asked from him as would be evident from annexure-1. Since the authority did not find the show cause to be satisfactory the present order of punishment came to be awarded against him. The reason why the petitioner is challenging the said order is because he has superannuated on 31.1.2004 before completion of one year time span of punishment order and it has affected his pension and other benefits arising out of the same. Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner is that the respondents have transgressed the power of imposition of punishment because no punishment can be imposed by recording a finding of guilt beyond the ambit of the show cause which was issued to him. Show cause was issued to the petitioner with regard to the allegation that a particular meter of a domestic consumer had not recorded a single unit for more than ten years and this has caused loss of revenue to the Board. - 2 - Since petitioner was a Junior Engineer Incharge of the area he had a responsibility and duty to take steps for removal of said anomaly by carrying out inspection in the interest of the Board. But while imposing punishment the respondents have held that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to carry out ten percent inspection of faulty meter which was not done and therefore the punishment. Learned counsel in support of the above proposition has relied on a decision rendered in the case of Sri Jai Prakash Narayan vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2005(3) PLJR 142. Perusal of the above decision would show that this decision has no application to the present case because proposition of law laid down therein is basically applicable in matters where steps have been taken for imposition of major punishment after holding a departmental enquiry where every charge would have to be proved by evidence and conclusion. Present case is a case of proceeding for imposition of a minor punishment and the Court does not find any major variation in the show cause and the order of punishment contained in annexure-2. The basic allegation against the petitioner is that though he was the Junior Engineer posted for almost three years and Incharge of the area, he never carried out inspection of meters even at random to find out reason behind non-functional of meter of a consumer. Petitioner may not be called upon to answer for all the ten years the meter had not worked but surely as a responsible employee it should have drawn - 3 - his attention at least during three years he was posted as the Junior Engineer of the area concerned. The submission and the legal proposition which is being relied upon by the petitioner is only to wriggle out of a situation where inaction or negligence is writ large on the face of the facts. The respondents in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that petitioner has not been singled out for such a punishment but all such employees who were posted in that area for the period concerned have been awarded similar punishment as would be evident from the assertion made in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit. The Court does not find any cogent reason or material illegality with the order of punishment and therefore the writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)