1. The petitioner has sought appropriate writ or direction to set aside orders dated 19.07.2001 and 16.05.2002 and to refund the amounts deducted from his salary towards the total bill of Rs.17,610/-, raised by the Gujarat Electricity Board on account of alleged theft of power.
2. It was vehemently argued by learned Counsel, Mr. Nilesh Pandya, for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Workcharge Chowkidar under the respondent with effect from 01.03.1991 and posted as Workcharge Operator at Manpur-1 Tubewell with effect from 01.02.1992. The Officers of the Gujarat Electricity Board visited and inspected the site of the tubewell on 03.03.2001 and found that theft of power was being committed at the site of the tubewell. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated by the Electricity Board resulted into liability of Rs.27,026.48/-, which was reduced to Rs.17,610/- in the appeal preferred by the respondents.
3. Pursuant to that proceeding and the payment required to be made by the respondent, recovery by way of monthly installment was effected by the respondents from the wages of the petitioner and those orders to effect recovery from the wages of the petitioner are the subject- matter of challenge in the present petition.
4. It appears from the impugned order dated 19.07.2001 that the appeal for reduction of liability was, in fact, filed by the petitioner and therefore his liability to pay to the respondent was reduced. By the time the petitioner approached this Court, the entire amount required to be recovered from the petitioner, under the impugned orders, had been recovered.
5. It was vehemently argued by learned Counsel, Mr. Pandya, that the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged theft of power insofar as he was provided with residential accommodation near the tubewell and power connection for that quarter was already existing when he joined his duties as Workcharge Operator. He, further, submitted that in absence of any evidence to the effect that the petitioner had taken illegal connection for the residential quarter provided to him and thereby had committed theft of power, the liability of paying the penalty to the Electricity Board could not have been fastened upon the petitioner.
6. Relying upon the two affidavits of the Executive Engineer of the respondent, it was submitted by learned Counsel, Mr. Mehul Rathod, that checking was carried out by the Officers of GEB at Manpur-1 Tubewell on 03.03.2001 and it was found by them that electric supply connection was extended to the accommodation given to the petitioner from three phase line and no permission for the same was obtained. It is, further, stated that the petitioner had acted against the rules without informing the respondent authorities and also without obtaining any permission from GEB. It is, further, stated that the petitioner was aware about the disconnection of Single Phase by the GEB on 28.04.1994 and the petitioner had himself taken connection from the Three Phase line for his residential purpose, which was illegal. Thus, in short, the petitioner had caused loss to the respondents at least to the extent of liability and penalty fastened upon the respondents by the act of the petitioner and only that amount was recovered from the wages of the petitioner by way of easy installments, according to the submission.
7. It is clear from the rival contentions, as aforesaid, that the question of facts were arising and in fact raised by the petitioner, insofar as the extension of electricity supply to the residential quarter of the petitioner is concerned, as stated by the petitioner, electricity supply had always been there, whereas, according to the respondents, the power was illegally extracted by the petitioner. In view of the assertion of facts and denial thereto on oath by the respondents, it is neither possible nor permissible for this Court to enter into the question of the facts and decide it either way, on the basis of the material placed before the Court. The fact, however, remains that the respondents had been required to make the payment to the Electricity Board on account of power consumption by the petitioner at his residential quarter. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the present petition either on equity or in law. Therefore, the present petition is DISMISSED. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(D.H. WAGHELA, J.) Umesh/