RATHIN GHOSH versus WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1175 · Decided: 29-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
   RATHIN GHOSH
v.
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY  DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5633 of 2019)
JULY 29, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law – West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees’
Service Regulations – Regns. 61 and 62– Appellant was
Superintending Engineer in the respondent-Company – On
09.01.2008, tender was issued by the Company for procurement of
10 lakh meters – Various bids received by the Company on
08.02.2008 –On 26.03.2008, the appellant received personal
invitation from an organization to attend a presentation organised
in New Delhi – Bids were opened and the successful bidder was
declared – Appellant got his to and fro air tickets booked from the
travel agents of the successful bidder – Disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the appellant – Appellant was dismissed from
service – Challenged – Dismissed – Writ Petition filed by the
appellant – Allowed – Appeal before the Division Bench – Allowed
– Held: Charges against the appellant were twofold (i) attending
the seminar without any permission from higher authorities (ii)
availing the hospitality of the successful bidder, as appellant’s air
fare was borne by them, while he was officially dealing with them in
the pending tender process – Appellant attended the presentation
on 17.04.2008 with prior information to his superior officer – Casual
leave application of the appellant having been sanctioned by his
superior officer by order dated 24.04.2008, ex post facto, the sting
of first charge goes away – Further, there is no material on record
showing that the successful bidder made any payment for the
appellant’s air tickets – It was the appellant who made the payment
of Rs.12,350/- against the bill raised by the travel agent – Money
receipt was filed in the proceedings, which was not disbelieved –
Also, the tender in question was ultimately cancelled, hence it is not
a case of any benefit obtained from the successful bidder out of the
tender –Further, imposition of punishment of withholding of pension
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1175
  1175
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
in proceedings under Service Regulations are illegal and without
jurisdiction, as for withholding of pension, there has to be separate
proceeding under the 1985 Regulations – Punishment imposed in
the present case is disproportionate to the charge, shocking the
conscience of the Court – Dismissal order set aside – Appellant’s
resignation letter dated 13.05.2008 be treated as voluntary retirement
– Appellant entitled to all benefits accruing to him on retirement as
on that date – Further directions issued – West Bengal State
Electricity Board Employees’(Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit)
Regulations, 1985 – Regns. 11-A and 6(i).
Service Law – Disciplinary proceedings – Interference by
Court – Scope of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: l.1 The casual leave application for 17.04.2008
having been sanctioned by Additional Chief Engineering (Distt.
Testing) by order dated 24.04.2008 ex post facto, the sting of
charge goes away. Further, it is on the record that the appellant
had informed his superior, Additional Chief Engineer (Distt.
Testing) on 16.04.2008 itself about his programme to attend the
presentation at New Delhi. The Additional Chief Engineer (Distt.
Testing) was produced by employer as PW4 in support of the
charges, who in his statement has clearly mentioned about the
invitation by the appellant having been placed before him and
appellant having intimated in the evening of 16th April, 2008 prior
to leaving for New Delhi that he was going to New Delhi for
attending the meeting. It is further stated by the witness that the
appellant informed him regarding his intention to attend the
meeting on 17.04.2008. Thus, the appellant attended the
presentation at New Delhi with the prior information to his
superior officer and also shown his invitation. The invitation was
not any official invitation but was in the personal name of the
appellant. Even if it is assumed that appellant was required to
obtain prior written permission from the Company to go to attend
the meeting, he having informed his superior officer in advance
before going to attend the presentation, the charge of any such
misconduct is not made out, which may warrant extreme
punishment of dismissal. ‘M/s. SM’ has not made any payment
for the air tickets nor is there any material on the record to show
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1177
that such payment

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.