O.P. Sharma vs H.P. State Electricity Board

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(a) That the impugned orders dated 9.3.1998 (Annexure A-1) and 19.6.1999 (Annexure A-2) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and specifically the imposition of penalty of Censure upon the applicant may kindly be declared to be illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

(b) That the respondents may be directed to release all the service benefits including the promotion(s) from the due dates with all consequential benefits as are due and admissible to him.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was functioning as Assistant Executive Engineer in the HPSEB, Sub-Division Kandrori, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, was charge-sheeted for having violated the provisions of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. The charge levelled against him was that he had released 7 AP connections in Mand area without obtaining sanction of estimates. He had used material which had been released in respect of other sanctioned estimates. He also did not seek approval of the Electrical Inspector before releasing 33 A.P connections. It would be pertinent to mention that an inquiry in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was conducted. The petitioner had been charged alongwith one Manohar Lal, Junior Engineer. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him but held Mr. Manohar Lal guilty of some charges. Here I am only considering the case of the petitioner O.P. Sharma. Though the Inquiry Officer in his report has exonerated the petitioner but the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had in fact granted such connection without prior sanction of the authority. Therefore, penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was disposed of by a virtually non-speaking order and all that was stated was that the Full Board of Directors agreed with the findings of the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Whole Time Members of the Board.

This petition can be disposed of on one short ground. From the material on record it is apparent that no notice was given to the petitioner that the disciplinary authority was not accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer. It is true that the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner and his comments on the same were asked for. However, since the petitioner had been exonerated in the inquiry report he could not have offered any comment except to say that he accepts the report. In case the disciplinary authority wants to disagree with the report of an Inquiry Officer it is incumbent upon the said authority to disclose the prima facie reasons why it wants to differ with the report of the Inquiry Officer and give the delinquent official an opportunity of putting forth his point of view. Without giving such notice, the disciplinary authority could not have taken a view which was contrary to the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the penalty of censure imposed upon the petitioner is quashed. Normally, in such a case, I would have directed that the Board can re-start the proceedings after issuing proper notice to the petitioner but since the petitioner has retired from service at this stage it would be meaningless to restart the proceedings. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.