WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. DILIP KUMAR RAY
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-132
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on November 24,2006

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Appellant
VERSUS
DILIP KUMAR RAY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KALI PRASAD MISHRA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
RIZWAN SHAH VS. SHWETA JOSHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-312] [REFERRED TO]
SANNAM BHARTI VS. DTC [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-255] [REFERRED TO]
D D MEDICAL COLLEGE AND D D HOSPITAL VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
ARUP BHATTACHARJEE VS. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY [LAWS(GAU)-2022-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA AND ORS. VS. FOUZIYA IMTIAZ SHAIKH AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
R. JEYAKUMAR JOTHI VS. HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT [LAWS(MAD)-2023-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
KALABHARATI ADVERTISING VS. HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.SUN TV NETWORK LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-114] [REFERRED TO]
NALINI CHIDAMBARAM VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-315] [REFERRED TO]
TIRLOK CHAND BANSAL VS. BHARAT BHUSHAN BANSAL [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-346] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
VIJENDRA KUMAR VS. VED PRAKASH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-214] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN KUMAR BAXI VS. J P SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2018-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. SUKHBIR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
G JAYALAL VS. U O I [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-176] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. SURAJ BHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-210] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA VS. M/S. TEHELKA.COM [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR SINGH SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
PALASH SAHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. MUNNI DEVI VS. MATROO LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2012-2-162] [REFERRED TO]
MS. KIRTHANA VS. MRS. VINAYA KRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAUDHARY VS. TECHNOLOGY PARK [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALAKSHA GANGOPADHYAY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-12-83] [REFERRED TO]
KANTAMANENI RAVISHANKAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
CH. PADMASRI VS. A.G.V.V.N. SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
N N S RANA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-279] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH VS. AMARJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2017-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBIHARI MISHRA SINCE DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS NEETA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-256] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
SH. DEEPAK RATHAUR & ANR VS. SH. SHASHI BHUSHAN LAL DASS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
MS. X VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATH RAMLAL GARANDWAL VS. M/S. AHMEDNAGAR FORGINGS LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-301] [REFERRED TO]
S GUNASEKAR VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-268] [REFERRED TO]
KANGANA RANAUT VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER [LAWS(BOM)-2020-11-174] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT [LAWS(SC)-2023-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION POWER COMPANY LIMITED OF ANDHRA PRADESH (APSPDCL) VS. M/S HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF E I D PARTY INDIA LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-159] [REFERRED TO]
ZILE SINGH VS. JAI PAL [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-194] [REFERRED TO]
G. JAYALAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL CHAND MULLANA VS. S.N. SHARMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-444] [REFERRED TO]
NIPA DHAR VS. NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-12-74] [REFERRED]
GOVERNING BODY OF HINDU COLLEGE VS. RATAN LAL & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD VS. SURESHCHANDRA V PAREKH [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-197] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing appellant's appeal questioning correctness of the order passed by a learned 7th Assistant District Judge at Alipore, 24, Parganas (South). By the judgment of the trial court the appellant and its functionaries were held to be liable to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- for harassment of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in this appeal and Rs.50,000/- for loss of his reputation. The High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.
(3.)Filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as follows:
Respondent no.1 was an employee of the appellant No.1- Board and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged against him and others per alleged misconduct and commission of various offences. Initially, the respondent No.1 was placed under suspension for alleged acts of misconduct while functioning as the Superintending Engineer, pending investigation drawal and disposal of the disciplinary proceedings against him. Since no charge sheet was issued within a period of four months a writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 for quashing departmental proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Board to issue the charge sheet. Accordingly the charge sheet was issued on 17.1.1986 containing 10 charges. Respondent No.1 submitted his reply to the said charge sheet inter alia denying and disputing each and all of the charges leveled against him. He prayed for permission to inspect certain documents and to take copies thereof. Since the said prayer was not accepted, another writ petition was filed on 13.9.1986 before the High Court. In the said writ petition order passed by the High Court was with to the effect that the enquiry should continue upon proper inspection being granted to all documents for which inspection had been offered, excepting three items. It was further directed that the enquiry should commence after grant of proper opportunity to the respondent no.1 in accordance with law. It was, further directed that the enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of commencement of the enquiry. Respondent No.1 continued to make grievance about denial of opportunity and on 10th September, 1986 purportedly written statement of defence in reply to the charge sheet was filed. By order dated 12th December, 1986, the respondent no.1 was informed that his reply was found unsatisfactorily and it was decided to hold an enquiry. Subsequently enquiry officer was appointed and a presenting officer was also appointed. However, the enquiry officer appointed originally was replaced because of respondent no.1's allegations of bias.

Another writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 for quashing the proceedings. The High Court directed the appellant to complete the enquiry by 15th May, 1987. It was clearly indicated therein that if there is default in completing the enquiry within the stipulated time, it would be presumed that the Board was not interested to proceed with the matter so far as the respondent no.1 is concerned, and the order of suspension would stand quashed. On an application moved, the time for completion of the proceeding was extended by two months. The enquiry officer concluded the proceeding on 1st June, 1987. He submitted the report on June 8, 1987, with the finding that charges Nos. I, IV, VI, VII, VIII and IX were not established. However, the charges Nos. II, V and X were established while charge No. III was partially established. Second show cause notice was accordingly issued proposing several punishments. A writ petition was filed challenging the enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and the second show cause notice. The only ground taking during the hearing of the writ petition was that the respondent No.1 who was the writ petitioner had not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing and thus natural justice was denied to him. Further he was not given access to several vital documents. It was contended that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and no reasonable person could have come to such finding on the basis of materials on record. The second show cause notice betrays the complete non-application of mind. In any event the punishment proposed was disproportionate with the offence alleged to have been established in the enquiry.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.