Judicial review of departmental proceedings emphasizes fairness and adherence to natural justice, and decisions must be based on substantial evidence, contributing to the case's resolution.

ORDER :

Vivek Jain, J.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/8 which is penalty order dated 28.02.2020 whereby the petitioner has been punished with withholding two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of loss of Rs. 2.00 lacs. The said order has been confirmed in appeal vide order Annexure P/11 dated 30.01.2021 passed by the Chief Engineer.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide Annexure P/1 dated 24.06.2017 with two charges. First charge was that on 21 & 22 December, 2015, Nagod Distribution Center under O&M Division Maihar was under supervision of the petitioner. The petitioner took work in the distribution Centre from one Lalua Choudhary who was unskilled labourer, and 8 months after of the incident, he submitted that due to floods the record of the sub-station has been destroyed.

3. The second charge which was that the petitioner was posted in Nagod Distribution Centre on 07.07.2014 and he has been negligent in discharging duties of the distribution centre incharge and he took work from one Lalua Choudhary unauthorizedly as a result of which on 22.12.2015 the said Lalua suffered electrical accident resulting in amputation of hands of Lalua Choudhary on account of which he had to be compensated with Rs. 2.00 lacs.

4. The petitioner denied the charges and submitted that the sub-station was being managed by the contractor M/s. R.D. Shukla. The sub- station has been outsourced from private contractor who was running the sub-station. As the contract of the earlier contractor M/s. R.D. Shukla had come to an end on 20.12.2015 then the Assistant Engineer must have instructed the staff of the contractor to continue working till the new contractor took over the charge on 23.12.2015. He stated that the contractor used to work under the instructions of Assistant Engineer and the sub-station had been outsourced and therefore, he cannot be held liable for accident that occurred in the Sub-Station on 22.12.2015.

5. A departmental enquiry ensued and in the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of both the charges but the disciplinary authority gave notice of disagreement and then after taking reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order of penalty Annexure P/8.

6. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 22.12.2015 there was some break down and to repair the break down, the line had to be shut down. The lineman of the area namely Kalika Prasad Bagdi had taken permit from Lalua Choudhary who had discharged the line from the sub- station and when the repair work had been completed, then Lalua Choudhary was asked to recharge the line but in the process of recharging the line, he incidentally touched the incoming jumper as a result of which he got electrocuted and suffered non fatal injuries resulting in permanent disability. It was further mentioned in the imputation of charges that upto 20.12.2015, the substation was being operated by M/s. R.D. Shukla and from 23.12.2015 the sub-station has been operated by M/s Sai Kripa Engineers.

7. From the imputation of the charge-sheet itself it is evident that there was no contractor to operate the substation on 21 & 22 December 2015. The supply of electricity being a essential service it could not be cut off and if the management of the Company was so much negligent in its duties that in a substation catering to a number of villages the earlier contractor’s contract had got over on 20.12.2015 then it awarded new contract only w.e.f. 23.12.2015, then