Facts
The appellant, an Assistant Electrical Engineer, was disciplined for recommending the use and extension of a contract for a vehicle alleged to be non-existent, and for facilitating payments based on forged documents.
Source reference: p.2–4The inquiry officer found the charges proved; the penalty imposed was stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and recovery of ₹2,34,752.
Source reference: p.2–4His departmental appeal and writ petition were dismissed.
Source reference: p.2–4The appellant’s review petition argued that he had handed over the cheque to Pramod Kumar Jaiswal but had not issued it; the review was dismissed.
Source reference: p.5–6He then appealed against the dismissal of his writ petition.
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether the disciplinary findings and resulting penalty were justified in the circumstances of the case
Source reference: p.6–72. Whether the appellant’s contention that he handed over, rather than issued, the cheque absolved him of responsibility
Source reference: p.7Law Applied
The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent. It applies the principle that where serious disciplinary charges are found proved and the employee does not seriously contest the inquiry officer’s conclusions, the resulting penalty may be upheld if justified by the facts.
Source reference: p.7It also treats handing over a cheque connected with a transaction based on forged documents as insufficient, by itself, to establish the employee’s innocence.
Source reference: p.7Reasoning
The Court noted that the charges concerned the alleged use of forged documents in relation to a non-existent vehicle and payments that caused financial loss to the department.
Source reference: p.6The appellant did not seriously challenge the inquiry officer’s conclusion that the charges were proved.
Source reference: p.6His distinction between issuing and handing over the cheque did not answer the substance of the misconduct: the cheque was handed over to a third party in connection with the impugned transaction.
Source reference: p.7In that context, the Court held that the penalty—stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of the departmental loss—was justified.
Source reference: p.7Holding
The Court held that the Single Judge’s decision could not be faulted and dismissed the appeal as without merit.
Any pending applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p.7Original Court PDF
Bijendra KumarvsThe North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
