Patna High Court
Vijay Pd vs The Bihar State Electricity Board And … on 20 February, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15717 of 2012
======================================================
Vijay Pd. S/O Late Shital Prasad R/O Village, P.O. And P.S.- Madhwapur,
District- Madhubani, Present Address C/O Shakti Medico, Main Road, Birpur,
P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board
2. Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. Joint Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut B Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Chief Engineer RE and HRD, BSEB Headquarter, Patna
5. General Manager Cum Chief Engineer Transmission Zone-Ii, Muzaffarpur
6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Purnea
7. Electrical Executive Engineer, Koshi Hydel Power Station, Birpur, Supaul
8. The Chairman cum Managing, Bihar State Power Holding Company
Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.
9. The Managing Director, Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan Patna.
10. The Deputy General Manager (HR and Admin), Bihar State Power
Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan Patna.
11. The Under Secretary, Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Rai, Advocate
======================================================
2
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2026
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Bajrangi Lal learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha learned Senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Abhishek Rai learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State
Power Holding Company Limited.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
for the following relief:
“i. For quashing of resolution contained in
Memo No.376 dated 19.12.2011 (Annexuer-13)
issued under signature of respondent no.3 Joint
Secretary, where under and whereby two
punishments have been awarded to the petitioner
viz. censure to be effective for one year from date
of issuance of order and stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect ignoring the
fact charges levelled against petitioner has not
been found proved during enquiry.
ii. For quashing of communication of respondent
no.3 contained in letter no.127 dated 21.05.2012
(Annexure-15) whereby intimation is made to the
petitioner that after due consideration memo of
appeal presented by the petitioner has been
dismissed, but the reasons for rejecting the
appeal has not been assigned and same has been
rejected without providing opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.
3
iii. And/or for any other relief/relief to which
petitioner is entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
iv. For setting aside the order contained in
resolution no.1840 dated 18.11.2014 issued
under signature of the Under Secretary, Bihar
State Power Generation Company Limited Patna
which has been passed during pendency of the
instant writ petition where under and whereby
order contained in Board’s resolution no.375
dated 17.12.2011 has been modified to the extent
that the punishment awarded to the petitioner
has been confined to only one punishment i.e.
stoppage of two increment with cumulative
effect.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that with
respect to the work done in connection with Koshi Hydro
Electric Power Station, Birpur between 23.7.1992 and
17.11.1995, an inquiry was conducted by the Audit team from
7.2.2001 to 1.5.2001. The Audit team submitted a report
showing irregularities to have been committed. The petitioner
who was also posted as Junior Electrical Engineer in the Birpur
Koshi Hydel Project, was issued with a show cause notice
seeking explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply on
5.1.2003. The petitioner was once again served with a notice on
23.3.2010 asking him to submit his reply with respect to the
Boards letter dated 11.11.2009. It is the case of the petitioner
4
that the petitioner asked for certain letters to enable him to give
an effective reply.
4. The petitioner was served with the memo of
charge on 29.5.2010, initiating a departmental proceeding
against him and asking him to submit his written defence. The
two charges against the petitioners were that firstly, to avoid
taking approval of the higher authorities, similar works were
split into different works which included cleaning of the power
house at an estimate of Rs. 1,35,582/. There were irregularities
in the process of disbursement of the amounts. The second
charge was that irregular payment to the tune of Rs. 2,11,806.90
had been found in connection with motor repairing and other
repairing works.
5. The inquiry proceeded wherein the petitioner
states that by letter dated 17.7.2010, he requested the Inquiry
Officer to provide documents which were not given to him. The
petitioner submitted his written statement before the Inquiry
Officer on 3.8.2010 requesting him to exonerate him from the
charges.
6. The inquiry report was submitted.
7. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that
without providing him with the opportunity of hearing, without
giving him a second show cause as also without providing him
5
with a copy of the inquiry report, the respondents came out with
the order dated 19.12.2011 imposing the punishment of censure
on the petitioner as also stoppage of two annual increments with
cumulative effect.
7. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed and information of its dismissal was communicated to
the petitioner by letter dated 21.5.2012 of the Joint Secretary,
Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna/General Administration
Department.
8. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation
before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State
Power Holding Company Limited on 12.8.2014, in response to
which he was asked to appear for personal hearing before the
Chairman on 29.9.2014. He accordingly appeared and was
heard.
9. Subsequently, by resolution dated 7.10.2014
issued under the signature of the Deputy General Manager,
Bihar State Power Generation Company Limited, the petitioner
was served with the copy of the inquiry report and a second
show cause notice asking the petitioner to file his reply within
seven days. The petitioner filed his reply on 10.10.2014.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that without
considering the petitioner’s reply to the second show cause, the
6
respondents came out with an order contained in the resolution
dated 18.11.2014 under the signature of the Under Secretary
imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect.
11. It is submitted by Sri D.K. Sinha, learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that inspite of
repeated request by the petitioner for supply of the relevant
documents, the same was not supplied, thus creating difficulty
for the petitioner to give an effective reply to the charges
levelled against him. It is further submitted that the inquiry
report was not served on the petitioner and the order of
punishment came to be passed on 19.12.2011. A copy of the
inquiry report was served on him much later on 7.10.2014.
Perusal of the contents of the inquiry report would show that
none of the two charges were found proved against the
petitioner. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed
by learned Senior counsel on the judgment in the case of
Jagdish Shah versus the State of Bihar; 2011 (3) PLJR 653,
Ravi Ranjan versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank and others
(judgment dated 1.2.2014; CWJC no. 1380 of 2020),
Surendra Prasad Singh versus Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department (order dated 28.4.2001; CWJC no.
2624 of 2017) and Punjab National Bank versus Kunj Bihari
7
Mishra; (1998) 7 SCC 84. It is thus submitted that the modified
order of punishment dated 18.11.2014 whereby the punishment
of stoppage of two annual increment with cumulative effect has
been imposed on the petitioner, is not sustainable and be set
aside.
12. The application is opposed by Mr. Anand
Kumar Ojha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Bihar
State Power Holding Company Limited. It was submitted that a
departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner on
serious charges of the petitioner having split up the estimates of
the different works to be carried out to avoid taking the orders
of the competent authorities. The other charge was of irregular
payments to the tune of Rs. 2,11,806.90 in various motor
repairing as also other repairing works carried out. On the issue
of non-supply of documents, it is submitted by learned Senior
counsel for the respondent Board that from perusal of the letter
dated 8.11.2010 brought on record as Annexure-9 to the writ
application, it would transpire that an opportunity was given to
the petitioner to come and inspect the documents with respect to
audit in the audit department of the Board on any working day.
13. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent
Board further submitted that the respondents came out with the
order of punishment against the petitioner on 19.12.2011. The
8
appeal preferred by the petitioner having been rejected, he
moved before the Chairman of the Board on 22.8.2014.
14. It is argued by learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was served with a
resolution dated 7.10.2014 by way of a second show cause
notice asking the petitioner to file his reply within seven days.
The said notice provided the reasons for the disciplinary
authority to have differed with the inquiry report, a copy of
which was enclosed with the said notice. The petitioner filed his
reply on 10.10.2014. It is after taking into consideration the
contents of the petitioner’s reply that the Board modified the
order of punishment passed against the petitioner on 19.12.2011.
The punishment of censure was withdrawn and by order dated
18.11.2014, only the punishment of stoppage of two annual
increments with cumulative effect remained against the
petitioner.
15. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent
Board further submitted that petitioner has not challenged the
order of the Chairman dated 20.9.2014 nor the second show
cause notice. It is further submitted that the case of Shri
Ramavatar Saha, Assistant Executive Engineer and Pramod
Kumar Kanth, Junior Engineer who were also proceeded against
leading to imposition of punishment of deduction of 10%
9
pension, were different and therefore the difference in the orders
of punishment. It is thus submitted that the petitioner having
been given an opportunity at each stage, having been provided
with the opportunity to inspect all the documents as also having
been given a second show cause notice, enclosing with the same
a copy of the inquiry report as also the reasons for differing with
the contents of the inquiry report, the petitioner has not been
able to point out any procedural irregularities. The scope of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in a
judicial proceeding being very limited, there being no merit in
the instant writ application, the same be dismissed.
16. Reliance has been placed by learned Senior
counsel for the respondent Board on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi versus
Union of India and Ors.; (1995) 6 SCC 749, Pravin Kumar
versus Union of India & Ors.; (2020) 9 SCC 471, State Bank
of Patiala & Ors. Versus S.K. Sharma; (1996) 3 SCC 364 and
Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. versus J.M. James;
(2022) 2 SCC 301.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
18. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
who was posted as a Junior Electrical Engineer was proceeded
10
against in a departmental proceeding with the memo of charge
having been served on him on 29.5.2010.
19. The petitioner submitted his written defence to
the two charges.
20. An inquiry report was submitted, however
without the same having been served on the petitioner, the
respondents passed an order of punishment dated 9.12.2011
under the signature of the Joint Secretary, imposing punishment
of censure and stoppage of two increments with cumulative
effect.
21. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed by order dated 21.5.2012 and further a representation
filed by the petitioner before the Chairman was considered by
him and it was the Chairman who by his order dated 7.10.2014
issued yet another notice on the petitioner, this time enclosing a
copy of the inquiry report dated 11.1.2011 and giving therein
brief reasons for differing with the same. It was on the reply
filed by the petitioner that the Additional Secretary by order
dated 18.11.2014 modified the order of punishment withdrawing
the punishment of censure and the only punishment which
remained was stoppage of two annual increments with
cumulative effect.
22. From the facts stated hereinabove, there is no
dispute with respect to the fact that no copy of inquiry report
11
dated 11.1.2011 having been served on the petitioner, the
respondents proceeded to pass the order of punishment dated
19.12.2011 and also proceeded to dismiss the appeal by order
dated 21.5.2012. It was much thereafter that the petitioner was
served with a copy of the second show cause notice on
7.10.2014 where after the order of punishment was modified
and by order dated 18.11.2014 while withdrawing the
punishment of censure, the punishment of stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect remained.
23. In the opinion of the Court, on receipt of the
inquiry report from the Conducting Officer the Disciplinary
Authority was required to forward a copy of the inquiry report
together with its own findings from the points on which it was
differing with the same to the Government servant ie the
petitioner herein who was to be given an opportunity to respond
thereto. The petitioner not having been given a copy of the
inquiry report, the same was clearly in teeth of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National
Bank versus Kunj Bihari Mishra; (1998) 7 SCC 84.
24. It may be observed here that even the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment was
dismissed.
25. Though while considering the representation
filed by the petitioner the Chairman provided to the petitioner a
12
copy of the inquiry report with his brief reasons for not agreeing
with the same, in the opinion of the Court, the opportunity
having been given to the petitioner at this stage would not
justify either the order of punishment nor the order dismissing
his appeal.
26. For all these reasons, in the opinion of the
Court, neither the order of punishment dated 19.12.2011 or the
order dismissing his appeal dated 21.5.2012 nor the modified
order of punishment dated 18.11.2014 are sustainable.
27. It has been contended by learned Senior
counsel appearing for the respondent Board that the petitioner
has not challenged the Chairman’s order issuing second show
cause notice to the petitioner and serving with the same a copy
of the inquiry report. This, in the opinion of this Court, would
not be of any consequence, the petitioner having challenged the
final modified order of punishment dated 11.11.2014. So far as
contention of learned Senior counsel for the respondent with
respect to the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution and also with respect to the submission that
no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the departmental
proceeding, the petitioner having got a copy of the inquiry
report as also the reasons for the authorities to having differed
from the same, as stated above, corrective measures taken at
such belated stage by the Chairman, while considering the
13
representation of the petitioner, the same would still be a clear
cut violation of the principles of natural justice as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in different cases.
28. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has
made out a case for interference in the order of punishment. As
such, the order contained in memo no. 376 dated 19.12.2011
(Annexure-13) issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary,
Bihar State Electricity Board (respondent no.3), the order
contained in letter no. 127 dated 21.5.2012 (Annexure-15)
issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Bihar State
Electricity Board as also the order contained in resolution no.
1840 dated 18.11.2014 issued under the signature of the Under
Secretary, Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd.
(Annexure-D) are all set aside.
29. The writ application stands allowed with all
consequential benefits.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 3.12.2025
Uploading Date 20.2.2026
Transmission Date NA
