JUDGMENT
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31-12-1997 whereby the disciplinary authority awarded major punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, censure and withholding the salary during the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid, Annexure-2 and also the appellate order dated 7-8-1999 whereby major punishment i.e. stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was withdrawn and the punishment of censure and withholding of salary during the period of suspension except subsistence allowance paid, Annexure-1 was confirmed.
2. The petitioner was posted as-Electrical Executive Engineer, M.R.T. Division, Jamshedpur in the year 1987. On 30-4-1987, the meter of M/s. Usha Alloy Ltd; Adityapur was changed in presence of the officers of M.R.T. including the petitioner and the supply wings. The old defective meter was not devaluted to M.R.T. Jamshedpur. On 7-2-1991, a charge-sheet was furnished to the petitioner in connection with loss of old meter which was said to have been lost after change of meter in the premises of M/s. Usha Alloy
Ltd. The petitioner filed explanation. Subsequently, the Board vide its resolution dated 28-8-1991 withdrew the charge made against the petitioner, Annexure-9 but the departmental proceedings continued against the other officers. The Electricity Board vide its resolution dated 22-9-1995 initiated a departmental inquiry against the petitioner in connection with the said, charge, Annexure-10. The petitioner challenged the charges in C.W.J.C. No. 10370/95. The said writ petition was dismissed on 28-3-1997.
3. In the departmental proceedings inquiry was made and the petitioner participated in the inquiry. In the inquiry four witnesses were examined i.e. Asst. Electrical Engineer (Supply) Sri Subodh Narain, Electrical Executive Engineer (Supply) Sri Vijay Bhushan Prasad, Electrical Executive Engineer, M.R.T. Ranchi Sri Murli Manohar Prasad and Junior Engineer (Supply) Sri Deonandan Singh. On conclusion of the inquiry, inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding that the petitioner is partly responsible for not following the prescribed procedure which resulted in loss of old meter. The inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20-12-1997 stating therein that the petitioner had requisitioned himself new meter from Ranchi and as such, it was duty of the petitioner to take possession of the old meter after replacement from the Electrical Executive Engineer (Supply). The petitioner submitted his show-cause on 29-12-1997 stating therein that the charges levelled against him were not proved during the inquiry. Besides, the aforesaid charge was not framed against the petitioner and as such, second show-cause notice with proposed punishment was not permissible under the law.
4. The disciplinary authority on consideration of show-cause passed order of punishment, Annexure-2. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order and the appellate authority withdrew one punishment, i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, however, confirmed the punishment of censure and withholding of salary during the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid, Annexure-1.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 wherein stand has been taken that there was no lapses in the departmental proceedings or violation of principles of natural justice nor any such any allegation has been made. The petitioner had brought the new meter for replacement at the premises of the consumer. He ought to have ensured safe custody of the meter and as such, it was his responsibility to take defective meter and deposit the same as required. The petitioner was present in the premises at the time of replacement of meter but he did not take care to ensure that old meter be kept in the safe custody. The entire charge was based on the fact that old meter replaced from the premises of the consumer was misplaced due to negligence and irresponsible act on the part of the officers including the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that there was no charge for which petitioner was punished. The petitioner appeared in the proceedings and full opportunity was given to prove innocence and thereafter inquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner partially guilty of the charges. A criminal case had also been instituted against the petitioner in which cognizance has already been taken. Moreover, it is matter of judicial review in which scope of interference by the Court is limited. The Court cannot function as appellate authority.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument submitted that there was no charge that the petitioner ought to have ensured safe custody of the old meter. Moreover, charges were not proved against the petitioner during inquiry and as such orders of punishment, Annexures-2 & 1 are bad in law. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the charges were with respect to loss of old meter which was an important evidence in the case causing loss of revenue to the Electricity Board. The petitioner had brought the meter for replacement at the premises of the consumer. He and other officers were present. He ought to have ensured safe custody of the old meter and deposited the same as required and as such in no way it can be said that there was no such charge. Moreover, Inquiring Officer had found the petitioner guilty of the charges.
7. To resolve the issue involved in the case, it would be relevant to examine the charges. The charges were with respect to loss of meter. The charges framed against the petitioner and others are at page 57 of writ petition wherefrom it appears that charge was that old meter in the premises of consumer was replaced by new meter in presence of the petitioner and other officers of Supply Division, Electricity Board but old meter which was an important evidence in case was lost due to negligence of the officers present there. Charge (Gha) is that the officers of the supply division of Electricity Board did not obtain the certificate of giving charge of the old meter from the Electrical Executive Engineer, M.R.T. the petitioner, due to which the said meter which was an important evidence in the case was lost. Neither First Information Report was lodged for loss of meter nor any concrete effort was made to trace out the lost meter and due to lapses on the part of delinquent officers the meter was lost causing loss of revenue to the Electricity Board. It is thus obvious from the charges as indicated above that charges were with respect to loss of meter due to laches of the officers present at the time of replacement of meter/proceedee and as such it cannot be said that there was no charge or that the petitioner was punished without charge.
8. The petitioner participated in the inquiry. On conclusion of inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding that the charge that meter was kept in the car of the petitioner was not proved. However, the Inquiry Officer recorded the finding that new meter was brought to the site by the petitioner without regular requisition from the Supply Wing. He should have been more particular to ensure regular requisition for the new meter and physical custody of the old meter after its replacement by new meter. The said procedure had not been adopted when the work was taken up, i.e., during actual time of replacement of the old meter by the petitioner who was present at that very time and as such he is responsible for not following the prescribed procedure which resulted in loss of meter. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that charges were not proved against the petitioner during inquiry in view of the findings arrived at as indicated above, in my opinion, has no substance at all.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon a decision in the case of State of Assam v. Mohan Chandra Kalita and Anr. A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2535. In the said case, Sub Dy. Collector, respondent, went to village Missamari in a school bus and paid compensation to some persons but could not pay to all of them. He informed them that if he gets conveyance, he will come next day otherwise they should come to Dhekiajuii. The people who were still to be paid said that it would be inconvenient for them to go to Dhekiajuii and later suo motu decided that they would pay charge of conveyance. The respondent, Sub Dy. Collector arrived next day at Missamari in a taxi and went into the room of Mauzadarand began to make payment. Some persons started collecting some fee outside the room on behalf of the respondent. On the said fact, charge was framed against respondent Sub. Dy. Collector that “he realised from those to whom he was paying compensation amounts certain percentage of compensation money due to them for payment of hire charges of a vehicle by which he was reported to have visited the office, After inquiry disciplinary authority removed respondent, Sub. Dy. Collector from service. However, the High Court quashed the order removing from service and as such the State of Assam challenged the said order before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court perused the evidence and found that it is clear beyond doubt that none of the witnesses testified to the fact that the respondent authorised the collection of hire for carriage nor any one said that they complained to him about the collections that were being made out side the room. In such a situation the, Apex Court has held that evidence was led in respect of the matter extraneous to the charge prejudicing the Inquiry Officer against the delinguent and the Inquiry Officer based his conclusion on conjectures and there was no evidence to show that any amount as alleged was realised by the delinquent himself or at his instance or even by his connivance, therefore, the charge cannot be sustained. In my view, said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner himself brought the meter. He, along with others, was present at the time of replacement of meter in the premises of the consumer but he did not take care to ensure safe custody of the old meter. The charges were with respect to loss of meter and as such the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my view, does not stand for rescue of the petitioner. Moreover, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to appraise the evidence or to decide the case as an appellate authority.
10. However, in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Uday Singh and
others , it held by the Apex Court that standard of proof as required in criminal case is not required in the departmental inquiry. Technical rule of evidence and proof beyond doubt is not applicable to the departmental inquiry. Preponderance of probability and conclusion drawn as a reasonable man from evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose of departmental inquiry. In the case of Government of T.N. and Anr.
v. A. Rajapandian , the Apex Court has held that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and set aside the order of dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove the charges if there is no fault with the proceeding. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar
Arora , the employee submitted forged Medical bill for reimbursement. The finding of the inquiry authority was that delinquent was main brain behind submission of such bills. In such a situation the Apex Court has held that High Court was wrong in interfering with such finding and order of disciplinary authority. In the case of B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. , the Apex Court held that in a case of departmental inquiry the Court/Tribunal cannot interfere with the finding of fact on evidence and substitute its own independent finding. It can interfere only when there is fault in decision-making process, where the findings are based on some evidence, the Court/Tribunal cannot reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding.
11. Therefore, on consideration as discussed above it has become obvious that this Court will not interfere with the order of punishment unless it is shown that there is no evidence to inflict the punishment or there was a violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, it has already been held that charge was with respect to loss of meter. New meter was brought by the petitioner and he was present at the time of replacement of meter. The petitioner was not found guilty for taking away meter but Inquiry authority has come to conclusion that petitioner was guilty for not ensuring physical custody of the old meter after its replacement and as such, it cannot be said that it is case of no evidence or the said finding is not based on the charges.
12. Therefore, on consideration as discussed above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.