Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
1. How the process of the Court is sought to be abused in order to save skin of the employees of the petitionersÂBoard is best reflected in the instant
case.
2 Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of HPSEB Consumer (for short, the Forum), under Regulation 16,
17 and 18 of the HPERC Consumer Grievances Redressal (Consumer Grievances Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003, claiming therein a sum
of Rs.1,32,04,247/Â on account of normal interest as well as penal interest in accordance with Section 47(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for
short, the Act). Respondent No.1 further claimed that it is eligible to the normal interest @ Rs. 11,18,409/Â in place of Rs.7,97,969/Â considering TDS
Messup, for which the petitioners were responsible.
3 The petitioners contested the complaint and claimed that they had calculated the difference of interest paid to respondent N.1 to be Rs.7,97,969/Â‐
and the reason for calculating the amount on lesser side was quoted as “clerical mistake or not updating the security amountâ€.
4 The Forum after going through the records and hearing the parties vide order dated 4.12.2017 (Annexure PÂ3) came to the conclusion that the
petitioners had paid less interest to respondent No.1. w.e.f. 2004Â05 to 2011Â12, therefore, as per Regulation 7 (6) of the Himachal Pradesh
Electricity Regulatory Commissioner (Security Deposit) Regulations, 2005, (for short, the Regulations), thus, had to pay the penal interest on the
interest payable at twice the rate, as the same was not paid within the stipulated period of 30 days, however respondent No.1 was not held entitled for
Rs.3,20,440/Â, which it had claimed on account of TDS Mess credited by the petitioners as respondent No.1 had already been allowed penal interest.
5 Aggrieved by the order of Forum, the petitioners have filed the instant petition without there virtually being any sustainable ground to challenge the
impugned order, as is evident from the grounds (a) to (d), which are reproduced hereÂinÂbelow:Â
“a. That the impugned passed by respondent No.2 contained in Annexure PÂ3 is against the facts and circumstances of the case besides being
based merely on conjectures and surmises, hence the same deserves to be allowed.
b. That the learned forum below has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing impugned order contained in Annexure PÂ3 in as much as once the
petitioner has placed on record the document showing the payment of interest as per the provisions of the Act and the delay was due to the non
updating of the security amount. This fact has not been appreciated by the forum below in its right perspective. Hence, the impugned order liable to be
quashed and set aside.
c. That the interest has been paid to the respondent No.1 by the petitioner as per the provisions of the regulation (7) and Sub Regulation (6). There
was no occasion for the Forum below to allow the present petition. Hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
d. That the learned forum has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law in as much as the order passed is vague and cryptic in
as much as no reasoning has been given. It is well settled principle of law that before fastening the liability reasons has to be assigned in the order but
a perusal of the impugned order would go to show that no reasoning has been given and order has been passed in a slip shod manner. Hence the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.â€
6 Narration of the aforesaid facts would disclose that it is not in dispute that the petitioners had deposited less amount towards interest and, therefore,
in accordance with Regulation 7(6) of the Regulations, were liable to pay penal interest on the interest payable at twice the rate as specified under
sub regulation (1) of the Regulations. It shall be profitable to reproduce Regulation 7 in its entirety and the same reads as under:Â
“7. Interest on security deposit payable by the licensee. (1) Subject to the provisions of subÂsection (2) of section 47 of the Act, the licensee
shall, with effect from the month succeeding the date on which the security amount is deposited, pay simple interest on security deposit of a the
consumer at the Bank Rate (as on 1st April of every year) as notified by the Reserve Bank of India or such higher rate as may be fixed by the
Commission from time to time and the amount of interest payable shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee.
(2) Where either the security deposit is less than rupees 100 or a connection is disconnected within one year after giving the supply, no interest shall
be payable thereon.
(3) The interest accruing to the credit of the consumer shall be adjusted annually against the amounts outstanding from the consumer to the licensee as
on 30th June of every financial year and the amounts becoming due from the consumer to the licensee immediately thereafter.
(4) The licensee shall duly show the amounts becoming due to the consumer towards interest on the security deposit in the bills raised on the
consumer and due after 30th June.
(5) The distribution licensee shall maintain for accrual of interest on security deposit of the consumers a separate head of account.
(6) The licensee shall pay penal interest on the interest payable at twice the rate specified under subÂregulation (1) for the delay in making the
adjustments for interest on security deposit beyond a period of 30 days after the date as specified in subÂregulation (3). This penal interest shall not be
a pass through to the consumers in the licensee’s Annual Revenue Requirement.â€
7 As observed above, the instant petition has been filed only to save the skin of the employees of the Board knowing fully well that the Board has
unnecessary assailed the order of Forum before this Court and the chapter would be closed after the dismissal of this petition and the erring officials
would impliedly be given a clean chit.
8 This in our considered opinion is neither permissible nor can such an approach be countenanced muchless upheld.
9 The employees of the Board, day in and day out, are dealing with these matters, therefore, they cannot feign ignorance and are rather presumed to
be having knowledge regarding the Regulations.
10 That apart, the Board, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be made to suffer for the gross negligence of its
employees and in such circumstances, the erring employees cannot be permitted to simply get away even after having been found to have acted in
gross negligent manner and thereby caused loss to the Board.
11 In the given circumstances, the Board cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name of fairness. Fairness is not one way street, more particularly
in matters, like the present one.
12 The Board is not sitting on King Solomon's mines. Even the Board borrows money from Government or other financial institutions and they also
have to pay interest thereon. The fairness required of it must be tempered nay, determined in the light of all these circumstances.
13 The employee of the Board is required to exercise high standards of honesty and integrity. Every officer/employee of the Board is required to take
all possible steps to protect the interests of the Board and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do
nothing which is unbecoming of an officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Board.
The very discipline of an organization is dependent upon each of its officers and officers' acting and operating within their allotted sphere. The conduct
of the employees/officers in this case cannot be permitted as casual in nature and is indeed very serious.
14 In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition as the petitioners have tried to abuse the process of Court and consequently, the
same is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/Â to be paid to the H.P. High Court Advocates' Welfare Association. However, we direct the petitionerÂ‐
Board to pay due and admissible amount to respondent No.1, in terms of order of the Forum, so also the costs, at the first instance, however the same
will be recovered from the erring officials/Officers, after conducting inquiry to this effect, which shall be completed within six months from today. We
make it clear that the mere fact that the concerned erring official/officer has either died or retired shall be no ground for not effecting recoveries and
these shall be effected from the pay/pension/family pension, as the case may be.
For compliance, list on 30.4.2021.
