Jharkhand High Court
Laxmi Narayan Singh vs Bihar State Electricity Board on 9 October, 2009
Author: Sushil Harkauli
Bench: Sushil Harkauli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5996 of 2006
Laxmi Narayan Singh ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar
Mr. D.K. Pathak
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Ranjan
Mr. A.K. Pandey
------
04/9.10.2009I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the B.S.E.B. and learned counsel for the J.S.E.B. Counter affidavits have been filed by both the respondents. The petitioner has challenged an order for recovery from his pension of certain amounts which is said to represent the loss occasioned to the Board on account of negligence of certain officials which resulted in non-initiation of certificate proceedings.
The petitioner alleged in the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the order of recovery.
It appears from the counter affidavit that this Court in W.P. (C) No.4384 of 2004 directed the Board to conduct an enquiry into the loss caused, fix the responsibility and make recovery.
In this present writ petition, this Court is not sitting in appeal over that order and therefore, for the purpose of this writ petition it will have to be assumed that the Boards are entitled in law what they have been directed to do by the Court's order. However, before deciding the extent of responsibility of the petitioner, if any, and consequently the quantum of amount to be recovered from the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was necessary in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner in the writ petition, asserted lack of such opportunity. There is no reply on that score by the B.S.E.B. However, the counter affidavit of the J.S.E.B. mentioned in paragraph-8 read with Annexure-E, that opportunity was given.
However, paragraph-8 of the said counter affidavit says that opportunity was given to the concerned erring officers by the J.S.E.B. by four letter nos. 6046 to 6049, each dated 12.11.2005. The copy of these four letters has been enclosed cumulatively as 2. Annexure E to the counter affidavit. These notices are addressed to Md. Mustaqe Ahmad Khan, Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, Sri Laxmi Kant Verma and Sri Gopal Prasad. None of these letters are addressed to the petitioner. Therefore, apparently, the petitioner's contention that he was not given opportunity of hearing stand unrebutted.
In view of the discussion above, this writ petition is allowed and impugned recovery letter dated 15.12.2005, Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed leaving it open to the respondents to pass a fresh reasoned order after complying with the principles of natural justice. The decision will be taken by the respondents within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the Secretary, J.S.E.B. and if the decision is that no recovery or less recovery should be made from the petitioner, the excess amount recovered from the petitioner, if any, will be refunded to the petitioner within one month of the decision.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.) Sudhir/FA