HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs LAXMAN SINGH

ACCORDING to the Revision Petitioner, the Respondent-Complainant had colluded with a Junior Engineer of the Board Shri B.S. Dhanda and obtained a power connection illegally in June, 1991. According to the Order of the State Commission the Junior Engineer received a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- for providing power connection and no receipt thereof was given to the Respondent-Complainant. No meter was installed on the ground that power meters were in short supply. In the meantime power was supplied to the Respondent-Complainant on the basis of Rs. 100/- per month representing "average consumption,,. Subsequently the SDO visited the site in July, 1991 and demanded Rs. 5,000/-and on the refusal of the Respondent-Complainant to pay the same, the electric connection was disconnected. The Respondent-Complainant sought relief before the Consumer Forum. The District Forum directed the restoration of electric power connection to the Respondent-Complainant but granted no compensation to the Respondent-Complainant. The State Commission in appeal upheld the Order of the District Forum holding that the power connection had been "duly released by the Junior Engineer on the payment of Installation charges".

AFTER going through the record and hearing the parties we are of the view that the Orders of the lower forums require to be reconsidered. It is not the case of the Respondent-Complainant that he was due in his turn for being given the power connection and that this was unfairly and unjustifiably denied to him. There was no doubt that he was in need of power connection and there are reasons to believe that he obtained the same by giving illegal gratification to a Junior Engineer of the State Electricity Board. (This Junior Engineer was subsequently suspended from service for his role in this case and he is facing departmental enquiry). It is also not established that the subsequent disconnection by the SDO was of a duly sanctioned and authorised power connection. He had only disconnected a supply connection that had been wrongfully given. So the question arises whether such disconnection constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the State Electricity Board. In fact this case raises an important issue: Is an employee deemed to be acting on behalf of an organisation or institution when the employee acts not in lawful discharge of his duties and responsibilities but illegally? Can the service or disservice by him be deemed to be service, good or deficient service rendered by the concerned Organisation? A priori non-provision of the service to which a potential consumer may not be eligible at a particular point of time would not constitute deficiency in service. We feel that the State Commission was in error when it held that in this case the power connection had been "duly released" by the Junior Engineer. We are, therefore, of the view that there is merit in the Revision Petition. The Respondent-Complainant had managed to obtain power connection by dubious means and the subsequent disconnection was, therefore fully justified and it cannot be deemed to constitute deficiency in service on the part of the Haryana State Electricity Board. There Revision Petition is allowed and the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. There is no order as to costs.