Case Background
The petitioner was appointed as an Electrical Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board and joined service on 16.03.2009. Over time, the Board was dissolved and five companies were formed. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited became the main controlling company.
The petitioner’s services came under the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL). He was ordered to be regularised after the work of Electrical Executive Engineer, Gaya, by order dated 15.04.2013. In 2014 he was transferred to Bhabua as Electrical Executive Engineer, and later, on 11.05.2015, he was posted as in-charge Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Munger.
During his posting at Munger, the Special Task Force (STF) of SBPDCL inspected the premises of one consumer, Yadunandan Prasad Sah. On 21.10.2015, the STF found electricity consumption of 27.42 HP against a sanctioned load of 10 HP.
On 06.04.2016, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He was accused of not taking cognizance of violation of Clause 7.1(b) of the Bihar Electric Supply Code 2007, allegedly causing loss of revenue to the company and giving illegal benefit to the consumer.
The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. However, the General Manager (H.R./Administration) of SBPDCL was not satisfied and issued a charge memo under Resolution No. 1144 dated 05.08.2016, along with Prapatra-Ka, initiating a departmental proceeding. The petitioner participated in the enquiry conducted by the Chief Engineer as Enquiry Officer.
The Enquiry Officer found nothing adverse against the petitioner and concluded that the allegation was based only on suspicion and was not proved. Despite this, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry report. A second show cause notice was issued through Resolution No. 964 dated 04.07.2017.
The petitioner filed his reply on 22.07.2017. Ultimately, by Resolution No. 1720 dated 15.11.2017, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of censure. He preferred an appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited. The appeal was rejected by order dated 20.07.2018, communicated by letter No. 2366 dated 23.08.2018.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of Resolution No. 1720 dated 15.11.2017 and the appellate order dated 20.07.2018.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core dispute before the Patna High Court was whether the disciplinary punishment of censure, and its confirmation in appeal, could stand in law, given the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the treatment of other officials involved.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had duly replied to the first show cause notice, but a charge memo was still issued and a departmental proceeding was initiated. The enquiry, conducted by the Chief Engineer, ended in a clear finding that the charges were not proved and were based only on suspicion.
Despite this, the disciplinary authority differed from the enquiry report and issued a second show cause notice. According to the petitioner, this second show cause did not clearly state the proposed punishment and therefore violated the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
The petitioner further submitted that the electricity connection in question remained disconnected from 30.10.2015 to 12.02.2016 due to non-payment. The loss of Rs. 81,341/- to the company was later recovered in the form of penalty, as shown in Annexure-16 to the rejoinder affidavit.
He alleged discrimination in the matter of punishment. For the same incident, he claimed that the Assistant Electrical Engineer, who was responsible for meter reading, received lighter punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect (Annexure P-12). In contrast, the petitioner faced censure which, according to him, resulted in cancellation of his promotion and reduction to a lower grade and pay.
The petitioner also argued that Clause 7.1(b) of the Bihar Electric Supply Code 2007 applied only when higher load was recorded for three consecutive months. In his case, electricity supply was disconnected on 30.10.2015 and restored only on 12.02.2016. Inspection was held on 16.03.2016 while the higher load was recorded on 21.10.2015. He claimed that this aspect was ignored by both disciplinary and appellate authorities.
To support his case, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India and Another vs. Mukul Kumar Chaudhary and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620, and B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749. He focused especially on the principles of proportionality in punishment and the limits of judicial review.
He also pointed out that during his entire service no pecuniary loss had been caused by him and that he had earlier received an appreciation letter for his work as Electrical Executive Engineer, Gaya, which was not considered.
On the other side, counsel for SBPDCL submitted that a full-fledged enquiry had been conducted and there was no procedural lapse. Two show cause notices had been issued to four different officials: Electrical Executive Engineer (L/A), Assistant Electrical Engineer, Junior Electrical Engineer, and JAC. Separate departmental proceedings were held, and all four were punished.
As per the respondents, the petitioner, being an Electrical Executive Engineer, was rightly given the punishment of censure. The Assistant Executive Engineer received stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, the Junior Electrical Engineer received stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, and the JAC received a warning.
The respondents relied on Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, and the same ruling in B.C. Chaturvedi, to argue that the High Court’s power of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. They contended that as there was no procedural lapse or error of fact, the High Court should not interfere with the findings or the punishment.
The Patna High Court began by examining whether there was any violation of procedure or principles of natural justice. It noted that the disciplinary authority had given reasons while disagreeing with the enquiry report, particularly relating to violation of Clause 7.1(b) of the Bihar Electric Supply Code 2007. The relevant portion of Clause 7.1(b) was reproduced in the judgment, dealing with contract demand for low-tension consumers with maximum demand indicator and installation of load arrestor up to 150% of contracted load.
The Court then revisited the principles laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi. It quoted paragraphs 12 and 13 to emphasise that judicial review is not an appeal on merits. The Court’s role is to see whether the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, according to procedure, with adherence to natural justice, and whether the findings were based on some evidence. It cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate court.
The Court also quoted paragraph 19 of Mukul Kumar Chaudhary, which explains that though the decision on punishment lies with the disciplinary authority, it is open to judicial review if the punishment is out of proportion to the fault. Excessive punishment can be interfered with under the doctrine of proportionality.
Further, the Court relied on paragraphs 12 and 13 of P. Gunasekaran, which clearly list what a High Court can and cannot do in disciplinary matters. It underlined that the Court cannot reappreciate evidence, cannot go into adequacy or reliability of evidence, and cannot correct even grave errors of fact unless there is no evidence at all or the punishment shocks the conscience.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court held that there was no procedural lapse in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner had not taken cognizance of a letter that had already been implemented on 19.05.2015, and by a later amendment in 2016, a provision for sanction was added. On this basis, the Court held that this was not a case for full judicial review of the finding of misconduct.
However, the Court did find it necessary to examine the proportionality and equality of punishment. It noted that for the same alleged wrong, four different punishments had been awarded: censure, stoppage of one annual increment, stoppage of two annual increments, and a warning.
While testing the doctrine of proportionality, the Court posed the question of what a reasonable employer would do in like circumstances. A reasonable employer must consider the measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances, and exclude irrelevant factors, before imposing punishment.
In this case, the misconduct was non-compliance with Clause 7.1(b) of the Bihar Electric Supply Code 2007. The Court observed that the punishment’s effect on the petitioner was harsh. Due to the censure, he had been deprived of promotion and reduced to a lower grade and pay for about five years.
In view of these facts, the Court held that the punishment of censure, as sustained by the appellate order, was disproportionate. The Court therefore set aside the censure portion of the disciplinary order dated 15.11.2017 and the appellate order dated 20.07.2018, only to the extent of punishment. It did not disturb the finding that there was some wrong on the petitioner’s part.
The Court directed the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order on the question of reasonable punishment. While doing so, they must consider the measure, magnitude and degree of wrong done by the delinquent. This fresh decision must be taken within 90 days from the date of production of the High Court’s order.
On this limited basis, the writ petition was partly allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for employees of public sector undertakings and government bodies who face departmental proceedings. The Patna High Court has made it clear that, while it will not sit in appeal over findings of fact, it can and will intervene where punishment becomes harsh or unequal.
The Court accepted that a proper enquiry was held and there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner. Yet it still protected him from a punishment that had serious long-term consequences on his promotion and pay, especially when other officials involved in the same incident received milder penalties.
For workers and officers, the decision shows that even if misconduct is found, employers must act like reasonable persons and balance the gravity of the fault with the punishment. Where four people are involved in one incident, the employer must justify why one person is hit much harder than others.
For government companies and departments, the judgment is a reminder that disciplinary powers are not unlimited. Orders must respect the doctrine of proportionality and treat similarly placed employees with comparable fairness, or they risk being corrected in court.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Patna High Court interfere with a disciplinary punishment when the enquiry is otherwise proper and supported by some evidence?
Answer: The Court held that it cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate body, but it can interfere with the quantum of punishment if it is disproportionate or unreasonable. - Issue: Was the punishment of censure, leading to loss of promotion and reduction in grade and pay, sustainable when other officials in the same matter received lighter punishments?
Answer: The Court held that such punishment was harsh in the circumstances and set aside the censure, directing the employer to reconsider and impose a reasonable punishment. - Issue: Did the departmental proceedings against the petitioner suffer from procedural lapses justifying full judicial review?
Answer: The Court found no procedural lapse or violation of natural justice and therefore declined to interfere with the finding of misconduct.
Cases Cited by the Court
- B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749
- Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India and Another vs. Mukul Kumar Chaudhary and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620
- Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19593 of 2018
Case Title: Binod Prajapati vs. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Date of Judgment: 09.01.2024
Citation: 2024(2) PLJR 128
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Mayanand Jha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Giridhar Gopal Tiwary, Advocate
Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Addl. S.C.; Mrs. Nirmala Singh, Advocate; Mr. Girish Nandan Abhishek, Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging departmental punishment and appellate order in service/disciplinary matter
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
