SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. BIHAR STATE POLLUUTION CONTROLE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The charges against the appellant are quite serious. Some of them stood proved at the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer gave benefit of doubt to the appellant in respect of some of the charges. The disciplinary authority, for the reasons recorded, did not accept the views of the enquiry Officer pertaining to those charges for which the appellant had been given benefit of doubt. The appellant was given appropriate opportunity to deal with the opinion of the disciplinary authority as was expressed by him while dealing with the enquiry report.

(2.) IN the circumstances, having regard to the nature of allegations against the appellant and the outcome of the enquiry, there was hardly any scope of interference and, accordingly, when the order of discharge, as was passed while concluding the disciplinary proceedings, was assailed in the writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court for reasons well recorded dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) ONE of the contentions before the learned Judge was whether the Chairman of the board, who passed the order, could be said to be the disciplinary authority within the meaning of the Act. Admittedly, it is the Board and not the chairman of the Board, who is the disciplinary authority. However, Section 11-A of the Act authorizes the Board to delegate to the chairman of the Board any of the powers of the board.