Dismissed over flawed inquiry, court orders to reinstate Bihar woman engineer after 13 years with 50% back wages

“Hence, the interest of justice would be served if the writ petitioner-respondent herein would be reinstated, as has already been done and is granted 50% of the salary and other allowances due for the period in which she remained out of service,” the May 26 order read.

On fresh inquiry after 13 years

• The high court noted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2012, the dismissal order was passed in 2013, and the challenge to the dismissal had remained pending before the court for over a decade.
• The disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Officer on Special Duty (Administration), whom the court called an incompetent authority.
• It reiterated that where disciplinary proceedings are found to be procedurally defective, the normal rule is to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry from the stage at which the defect occurred.
• However, relying on Supreme Court precedents, it observed that there can be exceptional cases where the passage of time makes such a course unfair.
• It was added that if a court considers or grants a relief in which no pleading was made, depriving the other party of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

• The court pointed out that 13 years had lapsed and “any remand to the competent authority for initiation of a fresh proceeding, at this stage, would thus be harsh” and would practically deny the petitioner any relief.
• It added that the question of back wages must be separately determined after considering all surrounding circumstances and balancing the equities between the parties.
• It was mentioned that if the competent court finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of natural justice, they will be justified in directing payment of full back wages to the employee.
• While upholding reinstatement of the junior engineer, the court disagreed with the grant of full back wages.
• The bench emphasised that reinstatement and back wages are distinct reliefs and that entitlement to back wages depends on the facts and equities of each case.
• The court held that the interests of justice would be adequately served by granting 50 per cent of the salary and allowances for the period during which the petitioner remained out of service, instead of full back wages.

Joining in 2011, dismissed in 2013

• The woman was appointed and joined as a junior electrical engineer on September 10, 2011, in the Bihar State Electricity Board (now Bihar Power Holding Company Limited), and thereafter she was posted in the PESU Control Room in Patna.
• The petitioner was posted as a junior electrical engineer in the Patna Electricity Supply Undertaking (PESU) Control Room, a show-cause notice was issued by the general manager-cum-chief engineer by a letter dated October 30, 2012, for indiscipline and wilful absence from duties during October 20-28, 2012.
• Subsequently, on finding substance in the allegation, the petitioner was transferred from the PESU control room to the electric supply section of North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited on an administrative ground. However, it was alleged that she did not join her new place of posting, and this act of indiscipline and defiance of order was added to the chargesheet.

• The petitioner was allegedly put under suspension by an order dated March 14, 2013. An enquiry report was submitted concerning the matter, which was considered by the managing director of the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, who proposed the dismissal of the petitioner and subsequently referred the order to the chairman-cum-managing director of the Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited for approval.
• Accordingly, the said chairman-cum-managing director approved the dismissal order on June 26, 2013, and communicated the same to the petitioner.
• Aggrieved, the woman approached the appellate authority, which rejected her plea on December 20, 2014.
• The petitioner then moved the Patna High Court, challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.

Arguments

Representing the electricity board, advocate Y V Giri submitted that once the said orders were set aside on being found that the disciplinary proceeding was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the matter should have been remanded for re-framing of charges and a fresh enquiry should be ordered.

It was further contended that once the initiation of departmental proceedings was not challenged in the original petition and was questioned belatedly after 14 years by seeking amendment of the petition, the same was not required to be considered.

It was further contended that since the petitioner had not proved that she was gainfully employed and that she did not earn any income in the said period, the consequential benefits, including monetary and service benefits, were wholly unjustified.

Appearing for the junior engineer, Senior Advocate Umesh Prasad Singh argued that the entire action, as well as the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, was tainted with mala fide, and she was subjected to mental and physical harassment in various ways.

It was additionally contended that since the said order of initiation of disciplinary proceedings was wholly without jurisdiction, the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order have no force in law.

It was further contended that after the orders were set aside, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and all the back wages, because she had been deprived of discharging the duty unauthorisedly.