Patna High Court - Orders
Ajay Kumar Prasad vs Bihar State Electricity Board on 11 October, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13826 of 2012
Ajay Kumar Prasad, son of Late Baleshwar Prasad, resident of Nasriganj
Biscuit Factory Riad, P.O.- Sigha, P.S.- Danapur, Town and District: Patna
Presently posted as General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer (Under
Suspension), Transmission Zone, Patna
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna
3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna
4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha & Ms. Mariya
Fatma, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate.
======================================================
P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN
ORDER
7 11-10-2012This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :-
(i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari commanding upon the respondents to certify and show cause as to why the office order no. 856 dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure 3) issued under memo no.
634 dated 14.03.2011 by respondent no.4 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been placed under suspension with effect from 14.03.2011 under Rule 100 of Bihar Service Code, be not quashed by this Court for being discriminatory.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-20122/21
(ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith to revoke the order of suspension as contained in Annexure 3 hereto and allow the petitioner to resume his duties treating his case at par with similarly situated employees whose suspension have been revoked suo motu by the respondent- authority.
(iii) For a direction to consider the case of petitioner in the light of the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2109 of 2012 as contained Annexure 5.
(iv) For a direction to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground that his suspension order (Annexure 3 hereto) has been passed by an authority not competent to pass such order as the order should have been passed the Board.
(v) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend all the consequential benefits to the petitioner upon revocation of his suspension which he is legally entitled to.
(vi) For a direction to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner in terms of Rule 96 of Bihar Service Code as the suspension of the petitioner has prolonged beyond the period of one year.
(vii) For any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions as this Court may think fit and proper.
(viii) The main relief relates to suspension and other consequential.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Electrical Engineer in the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 3/21 Board' for the sake of brevity) after observing all the procedures prescribed in law and he joined the said post on 18.04.1984, whereafter he was granted several promotions and finally he was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer vide notification dated 30.04.2009 and at present he is working as General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Patna.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that while posted as General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Electric Supply Area, Patna, he was implicated in a false trap case and Vigilance Case No. 114 of 2009 was instituted against him, in which he was arrested on 14.11.2009 and subsequently he was placed under suspension with effect from 14.11.2009 vide order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure 1), issued under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code' for the sake of brevity). Thereafter a departmental proceeding was started on 03.03.2010, but the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide letter dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure 2) with effect from 04.03.2011.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that on the same day i.e. 14.03.2011 the Board issued another order of suspension of the petitioner under the provision of Rule 100 of the Code and since then his suspension is continuing. Although after issuance of memo of charge, vide resolution of the Board dated Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 4/21 20.04.2011, the petitioner requested for supply of copies of relevant documents, but the same were not supplied to him and hence he is being unduly harassed by the authorities as after his suspension, no step is being taken in the departmental proceeding.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 14.03.2011 was issued by the Joint Secretary of the Board without any such resolution of the Board and hence the Joint Secretary not being the appointing authority of the authorized person, the said order was absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar C.C.A. Rules' for the sake of brevity) is neither adopted by the Board nor it is applicable to the employees of the Board and even office order dated 17.02.2011 issued by the Board with respect to delegation of powers was never published in the Gazette and hence it has no force of law nor it can be said to be legally valid. Furthermore, it is the Board itself, which is empowered to make regulation as per section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and every such regulation by the Board has to be placed before the Legislature. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of this Court in case of Ajay Kumar Prasad vrs Bihar State Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 5/21 Electricity Board & Ors., reported in 1995 (2) P.L.J.R. 393.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that neither the matter has been decided nor any charge against the petitioner has been proved, but inspite of that the petitioner has been branded as criminal and is sought to be punished by the impugned order of suspension, specially when the delay in the departmental proceeding is not due to any fault of the petitioner. He also claimed that the Board is making distinction between its employees as for the petitioner they are taking one stand, whereas, for other employees; such as Assistant Electrical Engineer, Jr. Electrical Engineer etc., they have been taking another stand. Hence the authorities are violating the provision of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are creating disparity among different classes for grant of the same relief. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of D. S. Nakara vrs Union of India & Ors., reported in (1983) 1 S.C.C. 305 as well as a decision of a Bench of this Court dated 30.03.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2109 of 2012 (SriKant Singh vrs.The State of Bihar & Ors.) (Annexure 5).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even subsistence allowance has been partly paid to the petitioner from 14.03.2011 till date. Thus, according to him, it is apparent that the Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 6/21 authorities are biased against the petitioner and have been punishing him for none of his fault by placing him under suspension and keeping him suspended for such a long period without any valid rhyme or reason.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent- Board and its authorities stated that the allegation against the petitioner was very serious as the petitioner was caught red- handed while taking bribe for settling a matter, which was not before him, rather it was before the assessing authority and on the basis of the said charges, he was suspended on the same day i.e. 14.11.2009 by the Vigilance authorities and his application for bail was allowed by the Supreme Court on 28.02.2011, whereafter he was released from jail on 03.03.2011 and he submitted his joining on 04.03.2011. In the said circumstances, his earlier suspension under Rule 99 of the Code was revoked vide order dated 14.03.2011 with effect from 04.03.2011.
10. Learned counsel for respondent-Board submitted that the charges were quite serious in nature and departmental proceeding had been initiated on 03.03.2010, whereafter an enquiry officer was also appointed, petitioner's order of suspension under Rule 100 of the Code was issued by the authorities on 14.03.2011 and memo of charge was also sent to Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 7/21 the petitioner along with relevant documents on 18.04.2011. The said suspension was necessary as the continuance of the petitioner in the department would have been a cause of embarrassment to the employees of the Board and moreover on 12.01.2010 itself sanction was given by the authorities to the Vigilance Department to prosecute the petitioner in Main Case No. 114 of 2009. Thereafter on 05.01.2012 sanction was given by the authorities to the Vigilance Department to prosecute the petitioner also in D.A. Case No. 24 of 2011.
11. Learned counsel for respondent-Board averred that earlier also in the year 2008, there were serious allegations against the petitioner, which were also merged in the instant enquiry. Hence the petitioner was a person habitual to royal thievery, which has now reached a monstrous dimension in India, its tentacles grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic and over all public interest and social object is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of law and while deciding such cases. In this connection, Learned counsel for respondent-Board relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of K.C. Sareen vrs. C.B.I., Chandigarh, reported in (2001) 6 S.C.C. 584 and in case of State of M.P. & ors. vrs. Ram Singh, reported in Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 8/21 (2000) 5 S.C.C. 88.
12. So far the jurisdiction of the authority passing the impugned order of suspension is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that earlier order of automatic suspension was passed by the same authority under Rule 99 of the Code, but the petitioner was not aggrieved and only after his suspension under Rule 100 of the Code, such an objection had been raised by the petitioner although the Board had delegated its power of appointment, dismissal etc. to the said authority concerned vide its resolution no. 9129 dated 09.06.2005, which was notified on 22.06.2005 (Annexure C/4). He also relied upon section 16 of the Central General Clauses Act and submitted that the authority having power to appoint, has the power to suspend and dismiss also and hence the Chairman of the Board had such authority by the aforesaid delegation as well as by the aforesaid provision of law.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that in view of the Electricity Act of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act' for the sake of brevity), specially section 172 thereof, the present Board still exists and is in transitional stage and the State Government has authorized the Board to continue as a State Transmission Utility and the Central Government has also Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 9/21 accepted it as the State Transmission Utility till the final transition. In this connection, he submitted that the Board still exists and is governed by its Regulation in such matters. He further submitted that clause 30 of the Bihar State Electricity Board (Conduct of Business) Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the `Regulation' for the sake of brevity), 1973 provides that any decision of the Board is to be authenticated by the Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary by the conscious decision approved by the Board.
14. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that for evaluating the contentions of the parties, it is quite necessary to look into the concerned provisions of the Code. Rules 99 and 100 of the Code read as follows :-
"99.A servant of Government against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest for debt or on a criminal charge or who is detained under any law providing for preventive detention should be considered as under suspension for any periods during which he is detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment, and not allowed to draw any pay and allowances (other than any subsistence grant that may be granted in accordance with principles laid down in rule 96) for such periods, until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he is released from detention and allowed to rejoin his duties as the case may be. An adjustment of his allowances for such period Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 10/21 should therefore, be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the Government servant being acquitted of blame or (if the proceeding taken against him, were for his arrest for debt) of its being proved that the government servant's liability arose from circumstances beyond his control or detention, being held by any competent authority to be unjustified.
100. A government servant against whom a criminal charge or a proceeding for arrest for debt is pending should also be placed under suspension by the issue of specific orders to this effect during periods when he is not actually detained in custody or imprisoned (e.g. while released on bail) if the charge made or proceeding taken against him is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties as such or involves moral turpitude. In regard to his pay and allowances the provisions of rule 99 shall apply.
15. So far the provisions of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules are concerned, both the parties had relied upon one or the other provisions mentioned below of the said Rules. Rule 9 of the said Rules reads as follows :-
"9. Order of Suspension-
(1) the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government by general or special order, may place a government servant under suspension when-
(a) a disciplinary proceeding against the government servant is contemplated or is pending, or
(b) in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, the government servant has engaged himself or herself in activities prejudicial to the interest Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 11/21 of the security of the State; or
(c) a case against the government servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial and the competent authority is satisfied that it is expedient to suspend the government servant in public interest.
(2) A government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority with effect from the following date :-
(a) from the date of his or her detention, if he or she is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours.
(b)from the date of his or her conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence he or she is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.
Explanation- The period of forty-eight hours specified in clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the date of commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.
(3) (i) After the custody period under sub-rule (2), the period of deemed suspension shall be deemed to end when the government servant gives his joining and the joining shall be accepted.
(ii) If a decision is taken to suspend the government servant again under sub-rule (1)(a), or (b) or (c), then such action may be taken only after acceptance of joining and by issuing a separate order.
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on revision under these Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 12/21 Rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders.
(5) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold further inquiry against the government servant to meet a situation where the court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case, on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.
(6) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent.
(b) Where a government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him or her during the continuance of that suspension, the authority, competent to place him or her under suspension, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct that the government servant shall continue to be under suspension till the termination of all or any of such proceedings.
(c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be modified or revoked by the same authority Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 13/21 who or whose subordinate authority has passed such order.
(7) Charge-sheet must be framed within three months from the date of issue of suspension order failing which on expiry of three months, the suspension order shall be revoked unless the authority, which issued the suspension order, passes the order renewing the suspension along with reasons to be recorded in writing for the delay in framing of charge-sheet for a further period of four months;
Provided that after the expiry of extended period of four months the suspension order shall stand revoked if the charge-sheet is not framed.
16. In addition to that Clause 30 of the Regulation of 1973 had also been relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, which provides as follows :-
"30. Authentication of Instrument-(i) Without prejudice to the existing Rules on the subject, the instruments carrying the orders and decisions of the Board may be authenticated by the following orders or any other officers specially authorized:-
(1) Secretary.
(2) Additional Secretary.
(3) Joint Secretary.
(4) Deputy Secretary.
(5) Under Secretary.
(6) Assistant Secretary.
(ii) The following may sign and verify all pleadings and plaints, written statements and petitions, tabular statements, applications for execution or otherwise, statements of facts, counter- statements of facts, for and on behalf of the Board. They may also sign, acknowledge and execute warrants, other processes of lawfully issued Vakalatnamas for and on behalf of the Board and any other documents to be filed in a Court :-
(1) Secretary.
(2) Additional Secretary.Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 14/21
(3) Joint Secretary.
(4) Deputy Secretary.
(5) Under Secretary.
(6) Assistant Secretary.
(7) Law Officer Affidavits may be sworn by any of the aforesaid officers or any other officer or employee directed by them to do so.
The responsibility for initiating action to file and defect suits, cases, legal proceedings (including arbitration and certificate proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act) pertaining to Board's headquarters lie on the Joint Secretary (Legal), Deputy Secretary (Legal) on reference being made by the Heads of the Department concerned, who will be responsible for promptly furnishing facts and materials necessary for the case.
(iii) Subject to other regulations and rules framed and instructions issued from time to time in this regard the following officers will file suits, cases, legal proceedings (including arbitration and certificate proceedings under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act), arising out of and so far as they relate to their functions and duties. They will also sign all the pleadings, statement of facts, Vakalatnamas, requisition for certificate or any other paper required to be submitted to the Court in connection with the suits, cases and legal proceedings -
(1) Chief Engineers.
(2) Additional Chief Engineers.
(3) General Superintendents.
(4) Project Managers.
(5) Superintending Engineers.
(6) Executive Engineers.
(7) Any officer entrusted with the functions and duties of the aforesaid officers.
Affidavits may be sworn by any of the aforesaid officers or any other officer or employee directed by them to do so. The responsibility for initiating action to file and defend and pursuing cases, suits, legal proceedings including arbitration and certificate proceedings under the B & O Public Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 15/21 Demands Recovery Act shall lie on Superintending Engineers and General Superintendents and Additional Chief Engineer (Civil) for cases pertaining to their jurisdiction, who shall, if necessary obtain orders of the competent authority in this regard. The General Superintendent, Superintending Engineers and A.C.E. (Civil) may issue such direction as they may deem it necessary to enable them to discharge their aforesaid responsibility."
17. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon section 172 of the Act of 2003 with respect to the transitional provisions, which reads as follows :-
"172. Transitional provisions- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act-
(a) a State Electricity Board constituted under the repealed laws shall be deemed to be the State Transmission Utility and a licensee under the provisions of this Act for a period of one year from the appointed date or such earlier date as the State Government may notify, and shall perform the duties and functions of the State Transmission Utility and a licensee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and regulations made thereunder.
Provided that the State Government may, by notification, authorize the State Electricity Board to continue to function as the State Transmission Utility or a licensee for such further period beyond the said period of one year as may be mutually decided by the Central Government and the State Government.
(b) all licences, authorizations, approvals, clearances and permissions granted under the provisions of the repealed laws may, for a period not exceeding one year from the appointed date or such earlier period; as may be notified by the Appropriate Government, continue to operate as if the repealed laws were in force with respect to such licences, authorizations, approvals, clearances and Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 16/21 permissions, as the case may be, and thereafter such licences, authorizations, approvals, clearances and permissions, shall be deemed to be licences, authorizations, approvals, clearances and permission under this Act and all provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly to such licences, authorizations, approvals, clearances and permissions.
(c) the undertaking of the State Electricity Boards established under section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948) may after the expiry of the period specified in clause (a) be transferred in accordance with the provisions of Part XIII of this Act;
(d) the State Government may, by notification, declare that any or all the provisions contained in this Act, shall not apply in that State for such period, not exceeding six months from the appointed date, as may be stipulated in the notification.
18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 with respect to Board's power of making regulations, which reads as follows :-
"79. Power to make regulations- The Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all or any of the following maters, namely :-
(a) the administration of the funds and other property of the Board, and the maintenance of its accounts;
(b) The summoning and holding of meetings of the Board, the times and places at which such meetings shall be held, the conduct of business thereat and the number of Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 17/21 members necessary to constitute a quorum;
(c) The duties of officers and other employees of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service;
(d) All matters necessary or expedient for regulating the operations of the Board under section 20;
(e) The making of advances to licensees by the Board under section 23 and the manner of repayment of such advances;
(f) The making of contributions by the Board under section 24;
(g) The procedure to be followed by the Board in inviting, considering and accepting tenders;
(h) Principles governing the fixing of Grid Tariffs;
(i) Principles governing the making of arrangements with licensees under section 47;
(j) Principles governing the supply of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees under section 49; (jj) expending sum not included in statement submitted under sub-section (1) or sub- section (5) of section 61, under sub-section (2) of section 62;
(k) any other matter arising out of the Board's functions under this Act for which it is necessary or expedient to make regulations:
Provided thatregulations under clauses (a), (d) and (jj) shall be made only with the previous approval of the State Government and regulations under clauses (h) and (i) shall be made with the concurrence of the Authority.
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 18/21 respondents had relied upon section 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with respect to the successors of the functionaries or of the Corporations, which reads as follows :-
"18. Successors-
(1) In any Central Acts or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of indicating the relation of a law to the successors of any functionaries or of corporations having perpetual succession, to express its relation to the functionaries or corporations.
(2) This section applies also to all Central Acts made after the third day of January, 1968, and to all Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1987.
20. From a bare perusal of Rules 99 and 100 of the Code, it transpires that the former provides an automatic suspension for any period, during which an employee is detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment, and for that period, he will not be allowed to draw any pay and allowance other than any subsistence allowance, whereas, the latter provides for suspension of an employee in a situation where he after being released from imprisonment or custody on bail and the proceeding taken against him was connected with his position as a government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties. In the said circumstances, the aforesaid two rules of the Code are not contradictory to each other rather they are with Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 19/21 respect to different situation. In the instant case the petitioner's earlier suspension was an automatic suspension under Rule 99 of the Code because of his arrest in a criminal case and immediately after his release on bail the said suspension was revoked, but such revocation of suspension under Rule 99 cannot legally stop the authorities concerned from suspending him again as per the requirement of Rule 100 of the Code.
21. So far the other point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the jurisdiction is concerned, it is apparent from the impugned order of petitioner's suspension under Rule 100 of the Code that the letter was issued by the Joint Secretary, but the order of suspension was passed by the Board itself, which had full jurisdiction to pass such orders, specially when the aforesaid provisions clearly show that even during the period of transition the Board is authorized to continue as a State Transmission Utility by the State Government as well as by the Central Government. Furthermore, the authority having power to appoint has also power to suspend or dismiss the employee concerned and hence the Board and its authorities were fully justified in passing the said order.
22. Furthermore, very serious charges had been levelled Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 20/21 against the petitioner, who was apprehended in a trap case red- handed as has been claimed by the authorities concerned and any step in the matter has to be taken with great precaution as such acts are spreading its tentacles to each and every institutions, created for protection of the republic, destroying its purposes and social objects for the development of the country and its antiquities. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the provision of section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 or the decision of this Court in case of Ajay Kumar Prasad (supra) do not help the case of the petitioner at all.
23. So far the question of disparity among different classes and violation of the provision of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, Rule 9(1)(c) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules does not contemplate any distinction and the impugned suspension of the petitioner under section 100 of the Code is equal to Rule 9(3)( ii) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules. Furthermore the petitioner being the General Manager and Head of one Area Board (out of seven) can also head the department, hence the said post being of very sensitive post, such person, who is said to have been caught red-handed while accepting bribe of rupees one lac and that too for a work, which was beyond his jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to be given such a charge during Patna High Court CWJC No.13826 of 2012 (7) dt.11-10-2012 21/21 the pendency of a proceeding against him. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, the decision of the Apex Court in case of D.A. Nakara (supra) and the decision of this Court in case of Sri Kant Singh (supra) are not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case.
24. Considering the aforesaid matter in its entirety, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned actions of the authorities concerned nor does it find any reason to interfere in such matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
MPS/- (S.N. Hussain, J)