Case Overview

In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of
evidence-based disciplinary proceedings, the Patna High Court delivered justice
to Gopal Pd. Kustawar, a 70-year-old retired employee of the Bihar State
Electricity Board, who had been penalized based on contradictory and
unsupported allegations. The case, decided on September 23, 2024, by Justice
Purnendu Singh, highlights the critical need for accuracy in administrative
records and fair treatment in departmental proceedings.

The Accusations That Started It All

The controversy began with an audit conducted for the
financial years 1999-2004, which alleged that during 1999-2000, Kustawar had
committed misconduct by failing to carry forward electricity bills due from 19
consumers while posted at Cycle No. 19. This alleged negligence supposedly
caused a financial loss of Rs. 1,30,484.60 to the Bihar State Electricity
Board.

Based on these audit findings, the Board initiated
disciplinary proceedings against Kustawar, ultimately imposing a major penalty
of censure along with withholding three annual increments with cumulative
effect through an order dated November 23, 2011. When Kustawar appealed this
decision, his appeal was rejected on March 2, 2012, prompting him to approach
the High Court through this writ petition.

The Heart of the Dispute: Where Was Kustawar Really
Posted?

The crux of the case revolved around a fundamental factual
dispute regarding Kustawar’s posting during the alleged period of misconduct.
The Board claimed that Kustawar was continuously posted at Cycle No. 19 from
March 1999 to April 2000, during which the alleged misconduct occurred.

However, Kustawar vehemently contested this claim,
presenting Office Order No. 365 dated June 7, 1999, which showed that he was
actually posted at Cycle No. 19A and 19B only from September 17, 1999.
According to his defense, he was previously working at Cycle No. 11 until he
handed over charge to Uday Shankar Verma on September 21, 1999, as evidenced by
a charge report.

The Legal Arguments

Petitioner’s Defense

Kustawar’s counsel, Mr. Kumar Ravish, argued that the
Board’s records were contradictory and unreliable. He pointed out that while
one document suggested continuous posting from March 1999 to April 2000,
another official order from June 1999 clearly showed a transfer arrangement
that contradicted this timeline. The defense emphasized that during
cross-examination, Senior Auditor Krishna Dev Pandit had admitted that the
Board had not actually suffered any loss as the amounts had already been
realized from the consumers.

Board’s Position

The Board’s counsel, led by Senior Advocate Mr. Vinay Kirti
Singh, maintained that Kustawar had admitted to being posted at Cycle No. 19 in
September 1999 and had failed to provide concrete evidence to refute the
allegations for the entire disputed period. They argued that the disciplinary
authority had followed proper procedures and that the penalty was justified
under Rule 29(B) of the Modified Certified Standing Order, 1995.

The Court’s Analysis: Principles of Natural Justice

Justice Purnendu Singh’s judgment reflects a thorough
understanding of the principles governing departmental proceedings. The court
began by examining the definition of “misconduct,” citing Stroud’s
Judicial Dictionary, which clarifies that misconduct must arise from ill
motive, while mere negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistakes do not
constitute such misconduct.

The judgment extensively relied on Supreme Court precedents,
particularly the United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee case, which
established that while strict rules of evidence may not apply in departmental
proceedings, the procedure must be fair and reasonable, giving the charged
employee adequate opportunity to defend themselves.

Critical Findings That Changed Everything

The High Court identified several crucial flaws in the
disciplinary authority’s approach:

1. Contradictory Evidence

The court found that the Board’s own records contradicted
each other. While claiming continuous posting from March 1999, Office Order No.
365 dated June 7, 1999, clearly showed that Kustawar was transferred from Cycle
No. 11 to Cycle No. 19A and 19B only from September 17, 1999.

2. Lack of Supporting Evidence

The disciplinary authority failed to produce any evidence
supporting the claim that Kustawar was posted at Cycle No. 19 during
March-April 1999, the period when the alleged misconduct supposedly occurred.

3. Ignored Relevant Documents

The inquiry officer failed to properly consider the office
order that clearly established when Kustawar actually joined Cycle No. 19,
choosing instead to rely on unsupported assertions.

4. No Actual Loss

During cross-examination, it was revealed that the Board had
not suffered any actual financial loss as the amounts had been recovered from
the consumers.

The Verdict: Justice Served

Finding the disciplinary proceedings fundamentally flawed,
Justice Purnendu Singh set aside both the original punishment order dated
November 23, 2011, and the appellate order dated March 2, 2012. The court
observed that the disciplinary authority had committed illegalities by ignoring
relevant evidence and basing its decision on contradictory and unsupported
claims.

However, rather than completely exonerating Kustawar, the
court took a balanced approach by remanding the matter back to the disciplinary
authority for fresh proceedings. The court directed that any new inquiry must
follow proper procedures under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, and must first place the petitioner under
suspension before proceeding.

Broader Implications

This judgment carries significant implications for
administrative law and employee rights:

1. Evidence-Based Decisions

The ruling reinforces that disciplinary authorities cannot
base punitive actions on contradictory or unsupported evidence, no matter how
senior the officials involved.

2. Burden of Proof

Administrative bodies must maintain consistent and accurate
records, and the burden lies on them to prove allegations with credible
evidence.

3. Protection for Retired Employees

The case demonstrates that retirement does not shield
employers from scrutiny when they impose penalties based on flawed proceedings.

4. Natural Justice in Administrative Proceedings

The judgment reaffirms that principles of natural justice
must be scrupulously followed in all departmental proceedings, regardless of
their quasi-judicial nature.

Conclusion

The case of Gopal Pd. Kustawar versus Bihar State
Electricity Board serves as a powerful reminder that justice, though sometimes
delayed, ultimately prevails when courts carefully examine the evidence and
apply established legal principles. The 70-year-old retired employee’s fight
against an unjust penalty based on contradictory records not only vindicated
his position but also reinforced important precedents for fair administrative
proceedings.

This judgment stands as a beacon for employees facing
similar situations, demonstrating that with proper legal representation and
clear evidence, it is possible to challenge even well-established
administrative authorities when they fail to meet the standards of fairness and
accuracy required by law. The court’s decision to remand rather than dismiss
the case entirely also shows judicial wisdom in ensuring that justice is not
only done but is seen to be done through proper procedures.

Read the full judgement Below;

MTUjMTgxNjUjMjAxMiMxI04=-u0hg–ak1–81qofc=