CWJ

C No.
20327/2021

Para-wise statement of facts

In the matter of CWJC No. 20327/2021 (Bijai kumar vs Bihar state power holding company ltd. and
others)

The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the South Bihar power distribution company
ltd.’s Resolution No. 1332 dated 09.09.2015, under which, the petitioner has been censored and also
his one annual increment has been withheld without cumulative effect for gross negligence on his
part and also for quashing the appellate order communicated to him vide SBPDCL letter no.1888
dated 23.12.2016. The instant writ petition has been filed after a lapse of 5 years and as such the
writ petition is fit to be dismissed solely on the ground of abnormal delay.

The writ petition accordingly has also been filed for the consequential benefits that is
promotion from the date the juniors have been so promoted and also restoration of inter se
seniority on the post of electrical executive engineer and also for promotion to the post of electrical
superintending engineer with effect from the date of the junior’s promotion. Since the order of the
disciplinary authority has been passed as reasoned order the prayer of the petitioner to quash the
said order is not tenable. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was time barred as the
order of the disciplinary authority was passed on 09.09.2015 and the appeal filed by the petitioner
was dated 30.9.2016. The maximum time of filing appeal as per Rule 25 of Bihar Government
Servants (classification, control and appeal) Rules, 2005, duly adopted by the power company is
maximum 45 days.

Now the Para-wise statement of facts are given as below:

1(i) & 1(ii). The punishment of censure and withholding of annual increment
without cumulative effect, both are minor penalties. Minor penalty can be imposed even
on asking show cause from the alleged person as explained in Rule 19 of Bihar CCA Rules
2005. A number of complaints were received from the consumers of Electric Supply Sub
Division, Katra, for not giving electric connection in time by the Petitioner. On inspection
conducted by Financial Controller, Revenue, the allegation of delay in providing energy
connection was found to be true. It was confirmed in the Energy Connection Register on
scrutiny. Therefore, it is clear that the Petitioner delayed in giving Energy Connection to
the Consumer with ill intention in his individual interest.

During inspection, it was also found that no action was being taken in the matter of
Energy Connection in compliance to erstwhile Board’s Office Order No.1539 dated
16.05.2011. It also came to light that the Petitioner had no knowledge about this order.
It is thus clear that the Petitioner does not keep himself vigil towards the day to day
instructions issued by the Apex authority.

During inspection, it was also found that during the inspection of the Application for
new electric connection and billing position of the consumers it was found that no bill
was being generated since May 2011 including the period of posting of the Petitioner
since Nov, 2011. At the sight of inspection, the Electrical Executive Engineer concerned
was also present and he also found the same to be true.
 During inspection it was also found that a number of consumers of big premises were
being billed for less than 100 units per months, putting a huge loss to the Board, the
connected load of concerned premises were not verified by the Petitioner and the Meter
and Metering unit were also not being read properly causing such serious irregularities.
Based on the above allegations, the Petitioner was asked to show cause vide erstwhile
Board’s letter no.673 dated 29.3.12. The Petitioner submitted the reply on 10.4.12 vide
his letter no. 40 dated 10.4.12. The allegations in the show cause notice and the reply
submitted by the Petitioner were examined in due consideration of the facts and records
available by the competent authorities. On due consideration it was found that the
Petitioner delayed in giving electric connection to Shri Shyam Krishna consumer in
compliance to the order passed by the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission which is
gross negligence on his part and therefore the punishment of censor coupled with
stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect was inflicted upon him vide
SBPDCL resolution no.1332 dated 9.9.15.

The petitioner then filed appeal before the appellate authority which was time barred
being in teeth of Rule 25 of Bihar CCA Rules 2005.
In view of the facts stated above relief prayed in 1(i) and 1(ii) are not tenable in the eyes
of law.

1(iii). With regard to 1(iii) it is hereby stated that promotion of the Petitioner to the post
of electrical executive Engineer was adversely affected due to lawful reasons. The
adverse effect of censor on the promotion of the petitioner was for next 3 consecutive
years after the year of allegation or omission and commission for which he was censored
meaning thereby the petitioner was censored for the omission and commission of the
year 2011-12 and its adverse effect was from the year 2012-13 to 2014-15, the effect of
withholding of increment came to an end after 8.09.2016 when the currency of penalty
of withholding of one increment was over. Therefore his claim for promotion with effect
from the date of his junior that is from 19.08.2016 is not tenable.

1(iv). In view of the above the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on both the grounds i.e.
on the ground of maintainability and merit too.

2(i). Denied

2(ii). Denied

2 (iii). The contention of the petitioner is not correct. He has not properly interpreted
the Rules of Bihar CCA rules 2005. The adverse effect of the punishment inflicted upon
him is as per explanation 2 (i) and 2(4) of Rule 14 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 as stated
in foregoing paragraphs.

2(iv). Denied.

2(v). Denied.

2(vi) Denied.
2(vii) Denied.

3. No comment.

4. No comment.

5. No comment.

6. The contention of the petitioner is not correct. The facts have been explained in the
foregoing paragraphs.

7. As explained in foregoing paragraphs.

8. Matter of record.

9. Matter of record.

10. Matter of record.

11. Matter of record.

12. Denied. The petitioner did not take efforts as desirable as per his job contents
resulting to such lapses.

13. Matter of record.

14. No comment.

15. Matter of record.

16. As explained in foregoing paragraphs the punishment of censure coupled with

stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect were imposed upon him on
due consideration of the show cause notice, reply of the petitioner and the facts and
records of the case by the competent authority.

17. Denied.

18. No comment.

19. Denied.

20. As explained above the petitioner filed the appeal against the punishment order
after abnormal delay of more than one year when the prescribed time limit for filing
such appeal is maximum 45 days.

21. As explained in foregoing paragraphs.

22. As explained in foregoing paragraphs.

23. The petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of electrical executive
engineer only after8.9.2016 being during the currency of penalty.

24. As explained in foregoing paragraphs.

25. As explained in foregoing paragraphs.

26. As explained in foregoing paragraphs.

27. Denied.

28. As explained in foregoing para.

29. As explained in foregoing para.

30. As explained in foregoing para. The petitioner has knocked the door of the Hon’ble
court after a lapse of more than five years of deep slumber and as such the writ is not
maintainable being time barred.

31. No comment