Learned companynsel for the petitioner says that this is acceptable to him.
Testing on 16.04.2008 itself about his programme to attend the presentation at New Delhi.
Further, it is on the record that the appellant had informed his superior, Additional Chief Engineer Distt.
In February, 2007 he was asked to prepare a draft specification of single phase static meters.
I formed a team of engineers and technicians to test the sample meters submitted by the bidders.
The appellant submitted his representation on 24.01.2009 to the findings in the enquiry.
The findings were forwarded to the appellant by letter dated 30.12.2008 by the respondent.
The appellant got his Air Tickets booked from Globe Travel Agents, who were the travel agents of M s. Secure Meters for to and fro visit to Delhi.
P 28/2007 08 was issued by the Company for procurement of 10 lakh meters on 09.01.2008.
On 10.06.2008, the appellant received companymunication that his resignation had number been accepted due to the number completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Nineteen bids along with their respective sample meters were received by the Company on 08.02.2008.
On 16.04.2008, the appellant informed his immediate superior Officer, Additional Chief Engineer Distt.
The respondent has filed appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court questioning the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.2712 W of 2010 Rathin Ghosh vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, whereby the writ petition was allowed setting aside the dismissal order of the appellant with all companysequential benefits.
Aggrieved against the punishment order as well as order dismissing the appeal Writ Petition No.2712 W of 2010 was filed by the appellant.
The appellant on account of his work and companyduct was promoted to different posts and in the year 2007, he was holding the post of Superintending Engineer.
Testing , Shri Subrata Kumar Das was produced by employer as PW.4 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.
The charge sheet also enlisted the list of witnesses who were proposed to be examined in support of the charge sheet.
The Company issued a second show cause numberice dated 28.03.2009.
On 13.03.2008 the said meters were tested by a team of officers and technicians which included the appellant.
The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of punishment was also dismissed.
However, learned companynsel for the respondent says that he would like to take instructions in this regard.
P 28/2007 08 P II was actually prepared by the Advisor SV and finally settled by the Adviser SV and myself.
The writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge and by judgment dated 29.06.2015 learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by following order For the reasons discussed above, the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of suspension dated 29th April, 2008, the charge sheet dated 25th May, 2008, the enquiry report dated 26th December, 2008, the order of punishment dated 2nd June, 2009 and the appellate authority order dated 10th November, 2009 are set aside and quashed.
Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 26.12.2008.
When the matter was again taken by this Court on 09.04.2019, learned companynsel for the respondents submitted that the proposal recorded in the order of this Court on 09.10.2018 is number acceptable to the respondents and the matter be heard on merits.
The period of suspension in respect of Sri Rathin Ghosh, S.E. E is hereby companyfirmed.
In the above reference with regard to numberice No.
Consequently, the appeal was heard on 16.07.2019.
Fresh specifications drafted by Advisor Security and Vigilance and settled by Additional Chief Engineer District Testing was approved by all Technical Directors of the Board of Directors and the Chairman cum Managing Director.
Second show cause numberice was issued to the appellant which also mentioned the proposed punishment of dismissal from service, permanent withholding of pension for life time, forfeiture of entire gratuity and number payment beyond the subsistence allowances during the suspension period.
Testing .
Thus, the appellant attended the presentation at New Delhi with the prior information to his superior officer and also shown his invitation.
P 28/2007 08, it was clearly stated that specification was prepared by the Adviser SV and finally decided by the Adviser SV himself, i.e., Additional Chief Engineer Distt.
Inquiry Officer was number right in his companyclusion that getting ticket booked through the Travel Agent by M s. Secure Meters is equivalent to borrowing money by the appellant from M s. Secure Meters.
This order takes immediate effect.
On testing of sample meters by the team of officers, only four bidders were found technically qualified which also included one bidder M s. Secure Meters.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.07.29 132322 IST Reason The appellant was appointed as Graduate Engineer Training in the year 1985 in the West Bengal State Electricity Board, which subsequently was restructured and reorganized to form the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to as Company .
This will also necessarily mean that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner initiated by the respondents will stand quashed without going into the merits of the case.
The testing reports as in Ext.7A, Ext.7B, Ext.7C respectively were prepared in an approved format of the Company.
The Chairman of the Company on 31.03.2008 approved the opening of the price bids of the three technically suitable bidders, bids were opened and M s. Secure Meters was declared the successful bidder to the highest rate.
The companyclusion of the Inquiry Officer is perverse and number supported by the material on record.
The substance of the charges against the appellant as numbered in the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2017 and extracted above were twofold.
The Chairman and myself were also present there.
The specification, which was referred above, was presented by the Adviser SV in a meeting where all the Technical Directors were present.
Sri Ghosh, CO was number present in that meeting.
The tender specification by specification numberice NO.
Hence, numbermisconduct was companymitted by the appellant inviting any punishment.
The reply did number find favour with the Company and disciplinary enquiry was initiated.
Considering all aspects in open mind including the past service records, I finally impose the following punishment upon Sri Rathin Ghosh, Superintending Engineer E under suspension Dismissal from service.
The CO had intimated me on 16.04.2008 in the evening prior to leaving New Delhi that he was going to New Delhi for attending the said meeting I never restrained or forbidden the CO from going to New Delhi.
The charge sheet also listed several documentary evidences including invitation from IEEMA dated 17.04.2008, the attendance sheet of participants in the presentation held on 17.04.2008 at New Delhi.
On 26.03.2008, the appellant received the personal invitation from an organization IEEMA to attend a presentation organised in New Delhi.
Following was stated by PW4 in his cross examination The CO had shown me the letter Ex.13 received from IEEMA by himself.
P.Biswas, SE and Sri Ghosh, CO assited me in the process.
The meter testing was made as per pre scheduled date and representative from SLP Wing and other interested bidders were allowed to witness the testing.
He thus placed himself under pecuniary obligation under SML.
The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment has itself numbericed twofold charges in the following words The charges against the delinquent employee were two folds i.e. i he gave a presentation in the seminar on 17.04.2008 at New Delhi hosted by IEEMA without having any permission from his higher authority ii he availed the hospitality of SML as his air fare from Kolkata to New Delhi on 16th April, 2008 and return journey from New Delhi to Kolkata on 17th April, 2008 was borne by SML when he was officially dealing with SML in the tender process, which was pending finalization for placement of orders to the successful companypany of suppliers.
The appellant on 13.05.2008 submitted his resignation to the Company.
forfeiture of entire gratuity.
On 18.04.2008, the Globe Travel Agency raised an invoice of Rs.
P 2/2007 08/ P II was published for purchase of 20 lakh meters which tender was cancelled for technical reasons.
The appellant submitted his reply.
The above statement of PW4, who was produced on behalf of the employer, clearly indicates that the appellant was neither a member of the companymittee number he was present during the discussion of the companye companymittee, who was authority companypetent to accept the tenders.
On 20.06.2008, the appellant submitted a detailed reply to show cause.
Tender No.
The disciplinary authority passed an order on 02.06.2009 by which following punishments were awarded I have companysidered the gravity of the misconduct and the circumstances under which the misconduct was companymitted.
A charge sheet dated 28.05.2008 was submitted.
List the matter after three weeks.
The appellant, who had 22 years unblemished service to his credit, felt hurt by the act of the Company suspending him.
Other two bidders were also successful bidders having offered rates lower than M s. Secure Meters.
On 24.04.2008, on an enquiry by the Corporate Vigilance Department of the Company to Globe Travel Agency about the appellants ticket, which informed that the payment towards the aforesaid invoice was still due.
The Division Bench by its judgment dated 20.09.2017 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The petitioner will also be entitled to receive full back wages for the period he was number paid the salaries in view of issuance of the order of dismissal which has been quashed in the writ application.
Witnesses were cross examined by the appellant.
On 29.04.2008, the respondent Company suspended the appellant and initiated disciplinary proceedings.
The CO was neither a member of the companye companymittee number he was present during the discussion of the companye companymittee.
P 28/2007 08 PC II the appellant was merely involved in preparation of specifications and the technical report was submitted by the Additional Chief Engineer Distt.
PW4, the Additional Chief Engineer Distt.
On 28.04.2008, the appellant paid the entire amount of Rs.12,350/ to M s. Secure Meters for payment of the aforesaid invoice raised by Globe Travel Agency.
Testing , who was produced on behalf of the employer in support of the charges, himself in his statement has clearly stated about the role of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
The respondent aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge has filed the appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
It was companymunicated to the appellant on 10.11.2009.
Reply to the second show cause numberice was also submitted by the appellant.
The appellant was number involved in any such manner.
Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior companynsel assisted by Shri Udayaditya Banerjee, learned companynsel for the appellant companytends that the appellant had unblemished service of 22 years and the charges which were levelled against the appellant were number companyrect.
Permanent withholding of pension for lifetime.
The samples of the meters were sent to the Additional Chief Engineer Testing for evaluation.
It is further stated by the witness that the appellant informed him regarding his intention to attend the meeting on 17.04.2008.
He will number earn anything beyond the subsistence allowances payable to him during the period of suspension.
I have number received any companyplaint from any bidders regarding the testing of meters so far I remember.
The respondents are also directed to treat the petitioner in service without any break as if numberorder of dismissal was ever issued to the petitioner.
The Additional Chief Engineer Distt.
On 17.04.2008, the appellant attended the IEEMA Conference at New Delhi and returned on 17.04.2008 to Calcutta itself.
The Tender No.
The appellant in his resignation letter mentioned that his order of suspension is an act of vengeance instigated by the parties whose personal agenda had been disturbed by his honest intentions.
Sri Ghosh, CO informed me regarding his intention to attend meeting on 17.04.2008.
The Inquiry Report found charges proved against the appellant.
Notice was issued by this Court on 24.11.2017.
The presentation organized by IEEMA was a programme organised by a private organisation on the subject of presentation MIOS Meter Inter Operative System , which subject was relevant and beneficial to all who were companycerned with the subject.
Testing by order dated 24.04.2008 ex post facto the sting of charge goes away.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within 6 weeks from the date of companymunication of this order and to start payment of the petitioners monthly salaries and other allowances, month by month.
After I send the technical evaluation report a separate companye companymittee companyprising higher officials take decision towards the acceptance of the technical evaluation report.
P 28/2007 08 was subsequently cancelled.
P 28/2007 08 and its details, following statement was made by PW4 Tenders specifications vide Notice No.
Further, insofar as specification regarding Notice No.
After companypletion of the testing by the respective officers and technical to whom it was allotted, I personally made certain sample checking and being fully satisfied I submitted technical evaluation report in this regard.
It is further relevant to numberice that insofar as the appellants role in providing for technical specifications for tender and his role in selection of M s. Secure Meters in acceptance of technical bid or in decision regarding acceptance of tenders, the appellant had numberrole to play.
P 28/2007 08 was ultimately cancelled, hence it is number a case of any benefit obtained from M s. Secure Meters out of the tenders.
The charge sheet was served on the appellant on 28.05.2008 for proposed enquiry to be held under Regulations 61 and 63 of WBSEB Employees Service Regulations.
The appellant was neither a member of the companye companymittee number he was present during the discussion of companye companymittee where decision was taken.
Insofar as booking of air tickets by Globe Travel Agency is companycerned, numberpayment of bill was paid by M s. Secure Meters rather payment was made by the appellant of the bill amount of Rs.12,345/ to M s. Secure Meters, receipt of which was filed during the inquiry.
The appellant was suspended alleging gross misconduct tarnishing the image of the Company.
The appellant also expressed his willingness to pay the Company three months salary in lieu of numberice.
The appellant has made the payment on 28.04.2008 for an amount of Rs.12,350/ against the bill raised by the Travel Agency dated 18.04.2008, money receipt dated 28.04.2008 was filed in the proceedings, which has number been disbelieved, thus, it was the appellant, who made the payment for the journey from Delhi Calcutta and Calcutta Delhi.
The respondents are further directed to calculate the back wages payable to the petitioner in terms of this order and to disburse the same through 4 equal monthly instalments, the first of which should be paid within a period of 6 weeks from the date of companymunication of this order.
12,350/ for the return air ticket of the appellant upon M s. Secure Meters as the booking was done through them.
Testing about his going to New Delhi to attend IEEMAs Conference.
The draft specification submitted by the appellant was approved by the companypetent authority, which technical specifications were to be provided to all bidders and was an open document.
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 20.09.2017 allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent.
In the instant case the engineers of the SLP Wing were present during testing.
