Anoop Singh Baloria vs HPSEB and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order Annexure A/1 whereby it has been ordered that recovery of Rs. 94,101/- be made from him.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Petitioner at the relevant time was working as Junior Engineer, Chabutra station. It is not disputed that one Engineer Sh. R.C. Thakur, handed over AAA conductor to the Petitioner on 4.4.2002. The Petitioner did not take action to keep this conductor in a safe place but the conductor was left in the open and the same was stolen during the night intervening 9th April and 10th April, 2002. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Sujanpur on 10.4.2002 itself.

A preliminary inquiry was conducted. First inquiry report did not fix the responsibility on any person though the Inquiry Committee observed that such conductor should not be left on the road but should be kept under the supervision of an employee of the Board. Thereafter, another inquiry was conducted and in this inquiry, the responsibility was fixed on the Petitioner. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner as to why the value of the conductor be not recovered from him since it had been stolen due to his negligence. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, the impugned order was passed. Hence the present petition.

Sh. Ajay Chandel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the second inquiry could not have been ordered. He further contends that since the store of the HPSEB available at Chabutra was at a higher level and there were stairs leading to it, this heavy conductor could not be carried to the store. There was no other store available and one person who had given his premises to be used as store by the HPSEB had locked the same. The Petitioner was, therefore, left with no choice but to leave the same in the sub station area. It is further contended that some construction work was going on and the Petitioner believed that the labourers who were carrying out the construction would ensure that no loss is caused to the conductor.

As far as the first submission is concerned, there is no merit in the same. The first inquiry did not fix the responsibility on any erring official though it did deprecate the practice of leaving the conductor in the open. It appears that the Inquiry Committee was asked to fix the responsibility of an official which led to the second inquiry report. There is nothing wrong in the second inquiry being conducted.

On merits, I find that admittedly the conductor, in question, was handed over to the Petitioner. It was his duty to ensure that the property of the Board is kept in a safe manner. He kept the expensive machinery on the road side. This was itself an invitation for theft. In case the Petitioner felt that he had no means of ensuring the safety of the conductor, he should have not accepted the same or should have immediately written to the higher authorities that he is not in a position to provide proper and safe watch for the security of the conductor. The Petitioner did not do any of these two things. He without paying any attention presumed that the conductor would be safe since it was a huge machinery. This act of the Petitioner definitely amounts to negligence in the discharge of his duties. It was his duty to ensure that the property of the Board is kept in safe place. Since the Petitioner did not discharge his duties properly, the Board was justified in ordering the recovery of the loss caused due to the negligence of the Petitioner from him. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.