AJAY KUMAR PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has impugned the order dated 3.2.1993 (Annexure-5) passed by the Bihar State Electricity Board placing him under suspension pursuant to the initiation of a departmental proceeding against him by a resolution of the Board dated 9.12.1992 (Annexure-4). From Annexure-4 it appears that the Board by a resolution dated 9.12.1992 decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner for enquiry into alleged acts of misconduct, and also appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The aforesaid annexure also discloses that a copy of the charge-sheet alongwith other relevant documents were directed to be served upon the petitioner.

(2.) The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent-Electricity Board has no power to place the petitioner under suspension, and reliance is placed upon an earlier order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3689 of 1992 (R) dated 8.1.1993, as also another an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7953 of 1988 dated 5th January, 1989.

(3.) It is necessary to refer to the factual background in which the instant writ petition has been filed. The petitioner was working as an Electrical Executive Engineer (Technical) when he was placed under suspension by an earlier order dated 29.10.1992 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The aforesaid order dated 29.10.1992 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3689 of 1992 (R). This Court by order dated 8.1.1993 quashed the order of suspension holding that since the Board had not published any notification under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, adopting Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, the Board had no power to suspend its employee in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. On such reasoning the impugned order of suspension dated 29.10.1992 was quashed. In that order it was also noticed by this Court that there was no statement on behalf of the Board that any charge-sheet had been served upon the petitioner in the contemplated departmental proceeding.