BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BRAJ KISHORE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred against the order dated July 20, 2000, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10919 of 1999 (Braj Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar 2000 (4) Pat. LJR 411), whereby the order dated October 30, 1998 (Annexure 6) dismissing the petitioner from services of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), and the order dated September 29, 1999 (Annexure 7) of the appellate authority, have been set aside, and the writ petitioner has been directed to be reinstated with entire arrears of salary within three months. The annexure numbers stated herein are those stated in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a shift guard in the services of the Board on July 24, 1978. Raid was conducted in the official quarter No. EF/13, allotted and in possession of respondent No. 1 herein, in his presence along with one Surendra Singh, and arms and ammunitions were recovered. Properties snatched in dacoity in a house and other incriminating materials were also recovered. FIR was lodged against the petitioner and he was taken into custody. The Board placed him under suspension vide Office Order No. 57, with effect from March 14, 1985, which was later on revoked without prejudice to initiation of departmental proceeding. He was, however, acquitted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur by judgment dated February 29, 1996 (Annexure 1), passed in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1997 corresponding to Muzaffarpur Town PS Case No. 105/85. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, vide Office Order No. 337, dated September 30, 1997. Sri Ram Jiwan Mehta was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report dated August 18, 1998 (Annexure 3), wherein he held that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and issued show cause notice to respondent No. 1, vide Office Order No. 2652, dated June 23, 1998, as to why he be not discharged from the services assigning therein the reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Respondent No. 1 herein had show cause and on appropriate consideration the same was found to be unsatisfactory, and the aforesaid order dated September 30, 1998 (Annexure 6), was passed whereby he was discharged from the services of the Board and was disentitled from the salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. However, the period of suspension was treated to be period of duty. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Chairman of the Board who rejected the same by aforesaid order dated September 29, 1999 (Annexure 7).

(3.) Respondent No. 1 herein challenged the aforesaid orders dated September 30, 1998 (Annexure 6), and September 29, 1999 (Annexure 7), by preferring CWJC No. 10919 of 1999 which has been allowed. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority have been set aside, and he has been directed to be reinstated in service with entire arrears of salary together with all allowances from the date of suspension within a period of three months. The learned single Judge has held that proper procedure in cases of such disagreement on the part of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the enquiry report has not been followed, as has been indicated by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra AIR 1998 SC 2713 : 1998 (7) SCC 84: 1998 -II -LLJ -809. In other words, the Disciplinary Authority should have recorded its tentative reasons for such disagreement which ought to have been conveyed to the delinquent employee, afforded him opportunity to represent before him, and then record its findings. Not having afforded such an opportunity, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority are vitiated in law and, therefore, have been set aside. He has further held that in view of the fact that the delinquent employee is undergoing agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted in the criminal trial in February, 1996, it is inexpedient to direct a fresh departmental enquiry and to allow the same to go on any further. Hence the present appeal at the instance of the Board.