Nesar Ahmad v. The Bihar State Electronic Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7013 of 2025 ====================================================== Nesar Ahmad Son of Laique Ansari, Resident of Village- Sigori, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna. At Present working as JE (Electrical) Electric Supply division, Sheikhopursarai, District Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Bihar State Electronic Board Bidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 2.

The Chairman cum Managing Director, The Bihar State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Baily Road Patna.

3.

The Additional Secretary, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna, Bihar.

4.

The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sheikhpura, DistrictSheikhpura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vivek Prasad, Adv.

For the SBPDCL :

Mr.Kunal Tiwary, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 26-03-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- (i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the respondent no. 2 which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 62 dated 17.1.25 issued under the signature of respondent 3 by which respondent 2 was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.7.24 passed by respondent 3 as

2/4 contained in his resolution no. 445 dated 4.7.24 whereby and where under respondent 3 was pleased to award minor punishment by stopping one increment with non- cumulative effect.

(ii). For issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside order dated 4.7.24 as contained in resolution no. 445 passed by respondent 3 whereby and where under respondent 3 was pleased to one early increment with non- cumulative effect without applying any judicial mind.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Junior Electrical Engineer. He always discharge his duty to the best of his capacity with the full satisfaction of the Organization. He further submits that the explanation was demanded from him on 05.09.2023 that due to providing a wrong meter reading of the consumer, the problem has arisen. He further submits that the consumer reading has been rectified thrice and in this regard, a detailed explanation has been made on 21.09.2023 taking the plea that the meter reading is not under his jurisdiction, but inspite of the fact, the petitioner was held responsible and minor punishment has been imposed thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, but his appeal was again dismissed and nothing has been considered.

4. Counsel further submits that the original as well as

3/4 appellate order are bad in law as both the orders had not considered his case. He further submits in crux that it is due to wrong reading made by the meter reading, the entire problem has been created.

5. Counsel for the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. submits that both orders are well reasoned order and there is specific stand of the Bihar State Electric Board that the petitioner was working as Junior Electrical Engineer who is responsible to ensure correct billing of the consumer and it is his responsibility to provide correct meter reading and serve the correct electricity bill to the consumer. It has been submitted that compliant has been made thrice for correcting the bill, but the petitioner being Junior Electrical Engineer (JEE), who is accountable to ensure the correct billing of domestic and nondomestic consumer and only due to this reason, the petitioner has been imposed punishment.

6. Counsel further submits that it is true that the petitioner was imposed minor punishment only due to this reason that the authorities have taken a sympathetic view, and therefore, the order passed is absolutely in accordance with law.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has not raised before this Court about any violation of the procedure, rule or natural

4/4 justice rather he has challenged the order on the finding of facts.

8. It transpires to this Court that for the purpose of interference in the minor punishment, the finding of facts which has been consistently against the petitioner by the Original and the Appellate Court, the violation of any rule or natural justice has not been alleged, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere and hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ application stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/- U