KAMDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application No. 3275 of 2008 the direction to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - (Ten thousand) with the High Court Legai Services Committee, Patna contained in orders of this Court dated 24.4.2008 for the failure of the Respondent -Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") to file counter affidavit is recalled as it appears from the averments made in the said Interlocutory Application that this writ application was dismissed for default under orders dated 10.7.2003 and was restored under orders dated 12.2.2007. Before restoration of the case records were received by the counsel for filing counter affidavit but was returned to the officer of the Board.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Board. Petitioner who at the relevant time was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Electric Supply Sub -Division, Munger when he was served with notice bearing letter No. 33 dated 5.1.1994 as contained in Annexure -2 whereunder it was alleged that he was responsible for defalcation of two thousand twelve kilograms of copper wire. In response to the show cause notice dated 5.1.1994 petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.1.1994, Annexure -3 asserting that the allegation that he is responsible for the defalcation of two thousand twelve kilograms of copper wire is absolutely incorrect as the departmental authorities in course of internal inquiry itself have found that the petitioner was not responsible for such defalcation which finding was even confirmed by the Audit Team in their report.

(3.) ON the basis of the documents placed by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer and the Audit Team it was suggested that there was delay in returning the copper wire to the stores as from January to March petitioner was engaged in connection with revenue collection but there was no defalcation of the copper wire. Under the impugned resolution No. 1906. dated 27.11.1998 as contained in Annexure -4 petitioner was imposed minor punishment of withholding of two annual increments and severe censure to be recorded in the A.C.R. for the year 1991 -92 besides petitioner was not to be considered for promotion for three years from the date he is found otherwise fit. The punishment order, Annexure -4, however, does not indicate that the substance of the cause shown under show cause reply bearing letter No. 59 dated 17.1.1994 that there was delay in returning the wire to the sotre has been considered by the Board as perusal thereof does not indicate that the competent authority took into account the submission of the petitioner that there was delay by the petitioner in returning the wire and he was exonerated by the inquiry as also the Audit Team in their report. As the substance of the cause shown has not been considered in the impugned punishment order dated 27.11.1998, the same suffers from illegality and is, accordingly quashed alongwith subsequent order of the Board contained in letter No. 688 dated 30.3.2000 as contained in Annexure -7, whereunder the representation against the impugned punishment order was rejected, however with liberty to the competent authority of the Board to pass a fresh order after taking into account the substance of the defence set out in the cause shown bearing letter No. 59 dated 17.1.1994 as early as possible, in any case, within a reasonable time.