BRIJNANDAN LAL BARNWAL Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 3.7.1996 of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board '), contained in Annexure 6, whereby and whereunder he has been inflicted with the major punishment of dismissal from service and, further, he will not be paid any terminal benefits to partly make up the loss caused by him.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Board 's service. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, vide Board 's Resolution No. 691 dated 29.7.1994 (Annexure 2) in connection with certain charges while he was posted at Transmission Sub -division, Hatia on account of non -submission of the progress report to his higher officers with respect to process of handing over and taking over charge of the stores by the outgoing Assistant Store Keeper Shri S.B. Bhattacharya to one Anadi Kumar Singh, Junior Storekeeper. It was also, however, alleged that the petitioner neglected his duties and unduly tried to cover up the irregularities committed in Hatia Store with the result that substantial financial loss accrued to the Board. The petitioner submitted his show cause/written statement, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 3, and enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer who submitted his report, a copy whereof was supplied to the petitioner vide Annexure 4. The petitioner, vide Annexure 4, was given second show cause notice with the proposed punishment of dismissal and for part recovery of the loss of Rs. 1,11,25,000/ - and odd from him. The petitioner submitted his show cause, vide Annexure 5, and the Board vide its impugned resolution awarded the aforementioned punishment.

(3.) MR . Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Board while not disputing the aforementioned contention, however, submitted that charge no. 1 which has been found proved by the enquiry officer in its magnitude was sufficient to award the punishment of dismissal and that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner. It was also submitted by Mr. Jha that in the impugned order it is mentioned that charge no. 1 was proved against the proceedee and that due to his lack of proper supervision of Transmission Sub -division, Hatia, the Board suffered the aforementioned loss.