BIHAR STEEL ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BRIJ MOHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 1998 has been filed against the judgment dated December 19, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W. J.C. No. 5569 of 1996 by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 against the order of his dismissal, and writ petitioner-respondent No. 2 against the order in reduction of pension has been allowed. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1476 of 1999 has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10745 of 1998 whereby the writ application filed by one of the private respondents, namely, Brij Mohan Prasad has been allowed and a direction has been issued to pay his retiral dues with an interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the remaining admitted dues from due date till the payment is made and further a cost of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) has been imposed.

(2.) The factual matrix are that at the relevant time the respondent No. 1., Brij Mohan Prasad, was posted as an Administrative Officer and the respondent No. 2 was posted as an Issue Superintendent under the Bihar State Electricity Board. An advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Electrical Assistant/Executive Engineer, in pursuance of which a written test was held on October 7, 1990. During the holding of the written test it was found that some of the candidates were allowed to sit in Room No. 12 at a particular centre which was not fixed for their sitting. Admittedly these respondents were Invigilators in the aforesaid examination specially at Room No. 12.

(3.) An explanation was called for from the writ petitioner- respondents with regard to the aforesaid misconduct at the time of examination on December 17, 1990. They filed their show cause on December 26, 1990 and the authority not being satisfied with their show cause decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against them and on December 28, 1991 charges were framed against both of them by resolution Nos. 1215 and 1217. The Superintending Engineer was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The charges levelled against the writ petitioner/respondents are as follows: