Punjab-Haryana High Court
Er. Hari Singh Sohi vs The Powercomm And Others on 9 January, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16006 of 2012
Date of decision: 9th January, 2013
Er. Hari Singh Sohi
Petitioner
Versus
The Powercomm and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
As per the averments made in this writ petition, the petitioner was posted as Additional Superintending Engineer/Operation Division, Dhuri during the period from 28.05.2001 to 06.12.2007. He was served with a show cause notice dated 05.02.2007 for negligence committed by him in performance of his duties alleging that during the said period, theft of energy was being caused by consumer namely M/s Goel Poultry Farm, village Meemsa falling in his jurisdiction because of negligence of the PSEB staff including the petitioner, as even after checking the aforesaid connection on 31.03.2006, the petitioner failed to notice any abnormality in the connection and consumption pattern of the consumer, which resulted into continuous theft of power by the consumer and such theft could be detected only on 24.08.2006 when a checking was made by Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) Sangrur. Civil Writ Petition No.16006 of 2012 2
The petitioner filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice issued to him admitting the fact that he checked the connection of M/s Goel Poultry Farm, village Meemsa falling in his jurisdiction on 31.03.2006, however, he denied the fact that he had failed to notice any abnormality in the connection and consumption pattern of the consumer, which resulted into continuous theft of power.
It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of his report, supplementary bill amounting to ` 60,341 was issued to the consumer vide Memo No.652 dated 09.05.2006 and even a letter dated 04.04.2006 and reminders dated 10.05.2006 and 20.08.2006 were written to the Senior Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Patiala for checking the alleged connection of the consumer, but the Flying Squad failed to turn up and it was only upon his repeated requests that the theft could be detected by the Flying Squad after opening the CT Chamber which he was not authorized to open, and thus, it was stated in the reply that no theft of supply was caused due to his negligence.
After considering the reply to the show cause notice, disciplinary action was ordered to be taken against the petitioner along with others for awarding any penalty out of the penalties enumerated in Clause (i) to (iv) of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.09.2008 (Annexure P-8), the punishing authority directed to impose a cut of 5 % in the pension of the petitioner for two years as the petitioner had retired on 28.02.2008.
Civil Writ Petition No.16006 of 2012 3
The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P-10). Even the Review Application filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid orders was dismissed by the Board in its 9th Meeting held on 28.12.2010 and an office order dated 07.01.2011 (Annexure P-12) was issued in this regard.
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders of punishment (Annexures P-8, P-10 and P-12) on the ground that the same are illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, non speaking and are hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Raising challenge to the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because the respondents have not considered the reply filed by him to the show cause notice and have not gone into the facts as to whether the petitioner has committed any wrong at all or not, and thus, the principles of fairness of proceedings have been violated. Moreover, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, no reasons have been given for rejecting the appeal and review application filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment by the higher authorities, and thus, the principles of natural justice, adherence to which is mandatory, have been infringed.
It has been further submitted before this Court that under the Sales Regulations, for supply of electricity energy to the consumers, sealing of the meter in question was not, in any manner, within the duty Civil Writ Petition No.16006 of 2012 4 of the petitioner and under the Regulations of the Board itself, the same was the duty of the Executive Engineer (Operation).
In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been made to suffer for showing his extra indulgence in performance of his duties which does not fall within his jurisdiction as he had checked the connection of consumer on 31.03.2006 which was the job of a JE/AEE and still the petitioner conducted the checking and noticing probable reasons he raised the additional bill and referred the matter to the Enforcement Wing for conducting proper checking after opening the seal and thus, no fault can be found in this process and petitioner cannot be held to be negligent in any manner.
In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in 'S.D. Prasher v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another' 2005 (2) SCT
261. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that imposition of punishment of 5 % cut in his pension amounts to a major punishment and the same could not be awarded without holding proper enquiry and without establishing the guilt of the petitioner which procedure has not been followed and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered in 'Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others' 2012 (1) SCT 779.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders as well as the documents placed before this Court and the judgments cited at the bar.
Civil Writ Petition No.16006 of 2012 5
The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that under the Rules, it was not his duty to make checking and the same was the job of a JE/AEE and thus, he cannot be held guilty, is without any force and is liable to be rejected outrightly.
Admittedly, petitioner was the Additional Superintending Engineer, under whose jurisdiction the relevant consumer connection fell and it was his duty to make necessary arrangements for proper distribution of the electricity supply and thus, he cannot say that it was not his duty to check the consumer connections falling under his area of jurisdiction. He being the over all in-charge of the area had a greater responsibility in performance of his duties. Moreover, the petitioner has not been punished for not conducting the checking of the consumer connection but for being negligent in performance of his duties. A perusal of the punishment order would show that on checking report it has been found that the meter in question was running slow by 42.34 % and as a result of which there was theft of huge energy. Moreover, it was further detected that blue phase of the LT cable on the fuse unit at H Pole was inter-changed with neutral, meaning thereby that theft of energy was being caused without tampering with the MCB/CTC seals and the same could have been easily detected on checking.
The judgment rendered in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) is not relevant at all in the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case a recovery was ordered to be effected from the petitioner on the basis of a chargesheet issued 23 years prior to his retirement, and the point as argued before this Court that cut in pension for two years will be a major punishment was not discussed at all, though a passing reference was Civil Writ Petition No.16006 of 2012 6 made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in 'Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab' 1991(2) SCT 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner was at a loss to prove before this Court as to how the cut of 5 % in pension for two years will have a cumulative effect for all times to come on the retiral benefits of the petitioner. No such an effort has been made. In this view of the matter, the argument raised is without any merit and the same cannot be sustained.
Again the facts of judgment rendered in S.D. Prasher's case (supra) are entirely distinguishable as in that case Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner and thus, on the basis of such an enquiry report the punishment could not have been awarded to the employee and in those circumstances the Court has held that the order passed by the appellate authority, which is non-speaking, is liable to be quashed.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 9, 2013 rps