Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved with the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Chairman -cum- Managing Director (for brevity, CMD) on 11.01.2016. Upon the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the DGM (Revenue), North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (for brevity, NBPDCL) vide his order contained in Memo No 625 dated 20.05.2016, modified the punishment order passed earlier, to the extent that one increment of the petitioner will be withheld with non-cumulative effect, during the period under suspension whatever has been paid to the petitioner, no further amount will be paid, however, the said period will be treated for making calculation of post retirement benefit and no salary will be paid to the petitioner for the period during which he remained out of Patna High Court CWJC No.4207 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026 service i e we f 31.01.2014, till the date of issuance of the present order on the principle of "no work, no pay". Subsequently, the petitioner obtained the copy of the order of the appellate authority which was provided vide letter No 597 dated 25.07.2017 issued under the signature of DGM (HR/Adm) of the NBPDCL, Patna.

8 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No 3, 4 and 7, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was proceeded for grave misconduct and serious irregularities, for which departmental proceeding was initiated and Patna High Court CWJC No.4207 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026 out of six charges, five charges were found to be proved and charge No 5 was not proved in absence of the evidence. It was further submitted that after following due process, the petitioner was dismissed from service and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected. The learned counsel for the respondent- NBPDCL further submits that petitioner preferred a writ petition and vide order dated 01.02.2012, while quashing the punishment order as well as the appellate order, the matter was remitted back to proceed afresh and in compliance thereof, the order of punishment was modified to the extent indicated in Memo No 151 dated 31.01.2014. The petitioner preferred a review, but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay.

9 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the charge No 5 was found to be partially proved since from the order passed by the CMD of the NBPDCL, it will transpire that with regard to shortage of 148 poles in the years, 2007, 2009 and 2010, the same were regularized vide different letters dated 06.02.2010, 18.02.2010, 10.02.2010 and 04.01.2010 and only on the basis of the above charge, which from the records itself, appears to be not of defalcation, the appellate authority found the charge No 5 to be partially proved and opined that since the petitioner has not taken care in keeping the records up to date, Patna High Court CWJC No.4207 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026 which goes to show his dereliction of duty, he went ahead and passed the impugned order of punishment which was communicated vide Memo No 625 dated 20.05.2016.

10 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the document available on record, I find that the charge No 5 was found not proved by the Enquiry Officer, however disagreeing with the same, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering the same, passed the order of termination from service, which was affirmed by the appellate authority, however the same were quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2012 passed in CWJC No 56 of 2012 and liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of second show cause notice by giving reason for disagreeing with respect to charge No 5. The Disciplinary Authority again issued second show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, went ahead with the order of punishment and terminated the petitioner from service. However, the same was modified by the appellate authority, to the extent that the order of termination was modified by giving punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, for the period under suspension, apart from what has been given to the Patna High Court CWJC No.4207 of 2022 dt.16-02-2026 petitioner, nothing will be paid to him, however the period under suspension will be counted for giving post retirement benefits and the period during which the petitioner was out of service i e from 31.01.2014 till the issuance of the order impugned i e 20.05.2016, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary in view of principle of no work no pay. This Court further finds that the authorities did not take into consideration the fact that no loss was caused to the NBPDCL on account of the shortage of 148 poles, which was later on regularized. Accordingly, the order impugned contained in Memo No 625 dated 20.05.2016 issued by the DGM (Revenue), NBPDCL and letter No 597 dated 25.07.2017 issued under the signature of the DGM (HR/Adm), NBPDCL deserve to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside.