BADRI THAKUR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) who has filed the counter affidavit in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 23.12.2008 which is taken on record.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as a Junior Engineer in the Grid Sub-Station at Begusarai. He has filed this writ application questioning the legality of the resolution of the Board dated 12.5.1997, Annexure-17, whereunder he has been dismissed after concluding a departmental proceeding initiated against him, Sri M.K.Verma, the Assistant Executive Engineer and Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, Senior Store Keeper. The memo of charge is dated 20.12.1988 (Annexure-11) which was served on the petitioner under resolution of the Board bearing No. 1404 dated 21.12.1988 perusal whereof indicates that there was theft of transformer valves and transformer oil from two numbers of 20 MVA transformer at Grid sub-station, Begusarai during the night between 14/15.08.1988. Petitioner along with Sri Verma is alleged to have delayed the lodging of the First Information Report resulting in theft of 16,000 litres of transformer oil from the two transformers valued at Rs. 2.5 lacs. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 31.5.1995 which is contained in Annexure-14 to this application found the petitioner not guilty of the charge as he noticed that petitioner had lodged the First Information Report through registered post. The disciplinary authority having perused the Enquiry Report differed with the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer as per the contents of second show cause notice dated 27.11.1995, Annexure-15. Perusal of the second show cause notice indicates that petitioner has been held guilty of the charge of delaying the lodging of the First Information Report with reference to the inaction of Sri M.K.Verma, Assistant Executive Engineer who was also found equally responsible for delaying the lodging of the First Information Report. In this connection, the disciplinary authority noted in the second show cause notice that the Enquiry Officer failed to see the negligent act of Sri Verma in not personally lodging the First Information Report and even informing the superior officer on the refusal of the police officer to accept the First Information Report. Having noticed the aforesaid negligent conduct of the petitioner and the Assistant Executive Engineer Sri M.K.Verma the second show-cause notice was served on the petitioner in response whereto petitioner filed his second show cause reply again reporting the same fact that he had lodged the First Information Report through registered post as he apprehended misbehaviour on the part of the police officer in case he had approached them personally. The second show cause reply was not accepted and by passing the impugned resolution dated 12.5.1977, Annexure-17 petitioner was dismissed from service.

(3.) During the hearing of the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge of delayed lodging of the First Information Report against the petitioner has been proved with reference to the inaction of Sri M.K.Verma, Assistant Executive Engineer who was also proceeded against with the petitioner but he has been given lighter punishment and was allowed to retire after attaining the age of superannuation and, thus, the punishment order passed in the case of the petitioner should also be modified and he should also be given the same punishment which was imposed on Sri Verma, Assistant Executive Engineer as both have been equally held responsible by the disciplinary authority for the delay in lodging the First Information Report.