Anil Kumar Jha Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.

Anil Kumar Jha vs Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Oct 15, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/522297

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/522297
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: M.Y. Eqbal, J.
Decided On: Oct 15, 2003
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 4737 of 2000
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar Jha

Advocate Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.

Respondent

Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.

Advocate I. Sen Choudhary and; Ajit Kumar, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: [2004(1)JCR122(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 5. it is well settled that the disciplinary authority can disagree with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer but while disagreeing he must give notice to the..........was initiated against the petitioner and other employees in terms of the certified standing order. the superintending engineer, patratu thermal power station was appointed as inquiry officer. the inquiry officer after considering the entire facts of the case and the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner and others have not been established. however the disciplinary authority disagreed and differed with the finding of the inquiry officer and directed the petitioner to file a show cause as to why the punishment proposed in the said notice be not inflicted on him. on receipt of the notice dated 6.2.1999 the petitioner submitted his cause justifying the finding recorded by the inquiry officer to the effect that the charges leveled against him was without any basis. after considering the show cause the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment.4. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority while issuing notice calling the petitioner to show cause has not specially and categorically stated the reasons of his disagreement with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer. learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority while disagreement with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer must give reasons of his disagreement. since the mandatory requirement has not been complied with, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. i find force in the submission made by the learned counsel. from perusal of the notice as contained in annexure 10 to the writ application it appears that the disciplinary authority instead of recording specific reasons of disagreement simply stated that after considering the charge sheet, written statement, deposition and report of the inquiry officer, it has been established beyond doubt that the petitioner.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.3.2000 issued by the respondents awarding punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, debarring from promotion for one year and also withholding payment of salary other than subsistence allowance.

3. The petitioner while posted as Operator in the Patratu Thermal Power Station was put under suspension in the year 1995 for certain omission and commission in the discharge of his duties. A charge-sheet was issued and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and other employees in terms of the certified standing order. The Superintending Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power Station was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after considering the entire facts of the case and the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner and others have not been established. However the disciplinary authority disagreed and differed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to file a show cause as to why the punishment proposed in the said notice be not inflicted on him. On receipt of the notice dated 6.2.1999 the petitioner submitted his cause justifying the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer to the effect that the charges leveled against him was without any basis. After considering the show cause the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority while issuing notice calling the petitioner to show cause has not specially and categorically stated the reasons of his disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority while disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer must give reasons of his disagreement. Since the mandatory requirement has not been complied with, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel. From perusal of the notice as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ application it appears that the disciplinary authority instead of recording specific reasons of disagreement simply stated that after considering the charge sheet, written statement, deposition and report of the Inquiry Officer, it has been established beyond doubt that the petitioner did not take charge of the Boiler and also did not report to his superiors regarding abnormal boiler condition. The disciplinary authority has not mentioned as to which evidence recorded or, brought on record which has either been ignored by the Inquiry Officer or has not been given proper weightage to that evidence.

5. It is well settled that the disciplinary authority can disagree with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer but while disagreeing he must give notice to the delinquent categorically mentioning the reasons of his disagreement. If that is not done the order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. In this connection reference may be made to the two leading decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157 and (1998) 3 SCC 385.

6. In my considered opinion therefore, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in law and the disciplinary authority will have to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer.

7. For the aforesaid reason this writ application is allowed and the impugned order of punishment is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh notice to show cause mentioning the specific reasons of his disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. After submission of show cause by the petitioner the disciplinary authority shall proceed and pass final order in accordance with law.

8. After I dictated the order Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents rightly submitted that after the creation of the State of Jharkhand the disciplinary authority of Patratu Thermal Power Station which comes within the Jharkhand State shall proceed in the matter and for the BSEB shall transmit all the records within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order to the disciplinary authority now posted in the Patratu Thermal Power Station.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2003 Same Parties Anil Kumar Jha vs Bihar State Electricity Board and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge M.Y. Eqbal, J. Acts & Sections Service Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Service