(1.) ON facing disciplinary proceedings Sidhnath Thakur filed a writ petition against the Bihar State Electricity Board. This was C.W.J.C. No. 8874 of 1996: Sidhnath Thakur v. The Bihar State Electricity Board.
(2.) ANY situation which the Petitioner Sidhnath Thakur may be complaining of was of his own making. The issue was on vacating the quarter when he was required to do so on the first transfer. Somehow or the other the Petitioner managed to retain the quarter for a period between 3 September, 1991 to 14 June, 1993. In between, he faced departmental proceedings, suspension and ultimate punishment for forgoing two increments with cumulative effect.
(3.) THE learned Judge deciding the petition was of the view that requiring the Petitioner to pay penal rent and giving him punishment under the Service Code may amount to double jeopardy. Recovery of penal rent was, thus, stayed. The matter was remitted to the Board, to look into the entire matter afresh. The Petitioner virtually got away with a petition which had, in fact, succeeded. Apprehending that the proceedings may yet chase him, the Petitioner filed a Letters Patent Appeal.