Kiran Raj

The High Court at Calcutta has dismissed a writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an Assistant Chargeman of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) following an incident that resulted in the deaths of two employees. The court upheld the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authority, concluding that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and in accordance with established legal principles.

The case pertains to the charge-sheet issued on May 25, 2012, against the petitioner, who was employed as an Assistant Chargeman at the Uluberia Transmission (O&M) Sub-Division. The allegations arose from an incident on September 30, 2011, when the petitioner, along with five technical staff, undertook a tree-cutting program within the campus of Kolaghat Thermal Power Plant (KTPP) without ensuring a shutdown of the 132 KV line. During the operation, two employees sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to them.

An internal enquiry conducted by WBSEDCL revealed that the petitioner had violated safety norms prescribed under two office circulars dated March 30, 2010, and July 16, 2011. The investigation found that the petitioner had failed to take necessary precautions before allowing staff to proceed with the tree-trimming task, thereby endangering lives.

The charges framed against the petitioner included negligence in performing duties, failure to adhere to prescribed safety norms, and violation of Regulations 1(b), (d), and (e) of the WBSEB Employees’ Service Regulations. The enquiry officer reviewed documentary and oral evidence, concluding that the petitioner had failed to ensure a shutdown before the task, which ultimately led to the deaths of two employees.

Further findings indicated that the petitioner, despite being responsible for line maintenance, did not follow established protocols and disregarded the safety measures outlined in the aforementioned circulars. The petitioner was found to have acted without due regard to the risk involved, leading to a preventable fatal accident. The enquiry also stated inconsistencies in the petitioner’s defense, including claims that he was unaware of the relevant circulars, which contradicted evidence indicating their dissemination within the department.

The disciplinary authority, by an order dated March 10, 2015, imposed penalties on the petitioner. The penalties included removal from service on the grounds of gross negligence, dereliction of duty, and endangerment of subordinate staff. The petitioner filed an appeal against the decision, but the appellate authority, in its order dated February 19, 2016, upheld the disciplinary authority’s findings, affirming that the enquiry process had been conducted lawfully and fairly.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from procedural lapses, particularly the non-supply of crucial circulars relied upon by the enquiry officer. It was argued that these circulars, marked as Exhibit Nos. 14 and 15, were never provided to the petitioner during his tenure at Uluberia Transmission (O&M) Sub-Division. The petitioner argued that reliance on these documents without prior supply led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the enquiry report and found that the relevant circulars were widely circulated among employees. The court stated: “The enquiry officer, upon evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the petitioner, despite being aware of safety stipulations, engaged technical staff in tree-cutting under a live transmission line without securing a shutdown.”

Additionally, the court noted that the enquiry officer had framed ten issues for determination, including whether the task had been pre-scheduled, whether the petitioner was aware of safety norms, and whether shutdown procedures were followed. The court found that the enquiry officer had duly considered witness testimonies and official records before reaching a conclusion.

The petitioner further argued that the disciplinary authority had prejudged the matter in the second show-cause notice dated September 25, 2014. The court examined this argument and held: “The disciplinary authority independently considered the charges and evidence before reaching its conclusions. The issuance of a second show-cause notice does not indicate predetermined intent but follows the standard disciplinary procedure.”

The court also observed that the principles of natural justice were followed, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to respond to the charges. The court referred to precedent cases, including Praveen Kumar v. Union of India (2020) 9 SCC 471, to reiterate that judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of procedural irregularities or manifest injustice.

The bench further stated: “A writ court cannot substitute its own view for that of the enquiry officer in cases where findings are based on evidence. The disciplinary process adhered to the legal framework, and the conclusions drawn were reasonable given the evidence before the enquiry officer.”

The court rejected the argument that the appellate authority had merely reiterated the findings of the disciplinary authority. Instead, it observed that the appellate authority had independently scrutinized the material and reached a reasoned conclusion, finding no basis for interference.

After a detailed examination, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the findings of the disciplinary authority were neither perverse nor contrary to principles of natural justice. The court ruled that the parameters established in judicial review cases concerning service matters were duly followed.

The court concluded that the enquiry process was fair and that the petitioner’s negligence had been established beyond doubt. It was noted that the nature of the misconduct warranted severe disciplinary action, as the petitioner’s failure to follow safety norms had directly led to the loss of two lives.

The court dismissed the petition and disposed of all connected interlocutory applications.

Case Title: Manabendra Chakraborty v. WBSEDCL & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 24127 of 2018
Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

[Read/Download order]