Back
2018 Supreme(All) 321
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DILIP B. BHOSALE, C.J. AND SUNEET KUMAR, J.
PREM PRAKASH MANIKTALIA - Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF Uttar Pradesh AND OTHERS - Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54070 of 2014, decided on 19th February, 2018)
Counsel :
Manu Mishra for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Baleshwar Chaturvedi, Sachindra Mishra and R.N. Pandey for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948—Section 79(c)—Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.) Officers and Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975—Regulation 2—U. P. Civil Service Regulations, 1975—Article 351-A—Departmental enquiry—Continuance of after retirement—Impermissibility/Permissibility—In view of Article 351-A of Regulation, 1975 read with Regulation 2 of Regulations, 1975 departmental enquiry can be continued even after retirement with sanction of Board. [Para 7]
(B) Precedent—‘Per Incuriam’—Doctrine of—Decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or authority binding on Court concerned—Or a statement of law caused by inadvertence or conclusions that have been arrived at without application of mind—Or proceeded without any reason so that in such a case some part of decision or some step in reasoning on which it is based—Is found to be demonstrably wrong are per incuriam decisions—Further if intricacies of relevant provisions are either not noticed or brought to notice of Court—Or if view is expressed without analysing provision or settled position of law—Such a view cannot be treated as binding precedent. [Para 11]
(C) Precedent—Order rejecting special leave petition at threshold without detailed reasons—Does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. [Para 12]
(D) Words and Phrases—Mutatis mutandis—Meaning—Phrase ‘mutatis mutandis’ implies that a provision contained in other part of statute or other statutes would have application as it is with certain changes in points of detail. [Para 5]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Manu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
2. Petitioner by the instant writ petition is assailing the appellate order dated 19 May 2012, affirming the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner, whereby, his pension has been reduced by 3%. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. Petitioner was served charge-sheet to which petitioner replied, however, during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28 February 2011 from the post of Executive Engineer. The sole ground pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order imposing punishment upon the petitioner is unsustainable for the reason that under the rules and regulations applicable to the servants of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (Corporation) departmental enquiry cannot be continued after retirement of the employee. In other words, there is no rule conferring power upon the Corporation to continue the disciplinary proceedings against an employee after retirement. Petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Keshav Deo Pandey v. Chairman & Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and others, 2012(11) ADJ 625; and Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2013, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil No. 8568 of 2013) ‘Chairman & Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and others v. Keshav Deo Pandey’ affirming the decision of the Division Bench.
Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (now Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.) Officers and Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 (Regulations 1975), to urge that Regulations 1975, which is applicable upon the petitioner does not contain any provision to enable the respondent-Corporation to continue the disciplinary proceeding after retirement.
3. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (Board) in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 (Act 1948), made Regulations 1975 governing the conditions of service of the servant of the Board.
Regulation 2, for our purpose, reads thus:
“2. All matters relating to conduct and discipline (including matters relating to punishment) and to termination, reversion and compulsory retirement of persons appointed:
(a) to the Board,
(b) ...
(c) ...
shall be regulated mutatis mutandis and subject to any other regulation for the time being inforce (including Regulation 1-A and above and 3, 4 and 6 below) by rules and orders for the time being inforce and applicable to corresponding categories of Government Servants under the rule making control of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh with the substitution of references in such rules to the Governor or the State Government by reference to the Board.” (emphasis supplied)
4. Regulations 1975 subsequently came to be amended in 1987 (w.e.f. 15 September, 1987) thereby incorporating additional punishments that could be imposed by the Board on the employee in disciplinary proceeding other than those provided under the Regulations 1975. The amendment is not relevant for the purpose of the present case.
A bare perusal and on plain reading of Regulation 2, it is clear that all matters relating to the conduct and discipline, including matters relating to punishment of persons appointed under the Board shall be regulated mutatis mutandis, subject to the provisions of the Regulations for the time being inforce, by the rule/regulation applicable to corresponding categories of Government Servants under the rule making control of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh with the substitution of reference in such r
