BRIJ MOHAN PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which has fallen for determination in this case is whether or not the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the said Board) is entitled in the facts of this case to initiate an enquiry on the self same charges on which previously an enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioners. Thereupon the disciplinary authority accepted the findings and also exonerated the petitioners and gave effect to the said findings of exoneration by promoting the petitioner No. 1 and also by allowing the petitioner No. 2 to retire.

(2.) IT is common ground that in the matter of holding enquiry, the Board is guided by the Rules which govern the disciplinary proceeding against the Government servant of the State of Bihar, namely, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and under the said Rules there is no power of review.

(3.) AT the material time petitioner No. 1 was working as an Administrative Officer and petitioner No. 2 was working as Issue Superintendent under the said Board. The said Board wanted to hold a competitive examination for the recruitment of Electrical Assistant/Executive Engineer. Such examination was scheduled to be held at two centres, one at Patna College and another at St. Michael School. In respect of the said examination held on 7.10.1990 both the petitioners were deputed in Room No. 12 at Patna College Centre as Invigilators. The petitioner's case is that when they went to room No. 12, they found that as per the sitting arrangements displayed at the main gate the names and roll numbers of the candidates were posted at the door and according to the sitting arrangements copies and question papers were to be distributed. A computerised attendance sheet of the candidates of each room was made available to the petitioners for more than half an hour after the commencement of the examination. Then the petitioners took the attendance of the candidates in accordance with the said computerised attendance sheets and it could be detected that seven candidates whose names and roll numbers were not mentioned in the computerised sheets were also sitting and taking examination in room No. 12. The petitioners asserted that the said fact was brought to the notice of the Secretary of the Board and other authorities and on their oral instruction on the spot, the attendance of those seven candidates were taken on a separate loose sheet.