TRIBENI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent -Board.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as a Junior Engineer in the Electric Supply Section, Daltonganj (Rural). An accident took place in the town of Daltonganj on 12/ 13.4.2000. A Ramnavami procession obstructed by 11000 K.V. wires dabbled the same with long bamboos to clear the passage for the procession. This resulted in the wires snapping. The allegations are that despite snapping of the wire in absence of proper size of fuse at the sub -station, the fuse did not blow up when 29 processionist are state to have been electrocuted by the snapped wires. The petitioner along with an Assistant Engineer, two Executive Engineer and a Superintending Engineer were departmentally proceeded with. The memo of charges consisted of four issues. Charge no. 2 stated that the Bairia Sub -station, where the fuse was located, was visited by high officials, who found that an oversize fuse had been installed and because of which it did not blow up when the wires snapped. Charge no.4 stated that when the Committee members looked for the petitioner, he was found unauthorisedly absent. This Court does not consider it necessary to deal with charge no.1 & 3 because the petitioner was exonerated of the same by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner filed his reply to the memo of charges and also submitted written arguments. He also filed his reply to the second show cause notice and had preferred an appeal against the punishment also.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no material before the Inquiry Officer of the so -called visit by the higher officials to the Sub -station. He next submitted that during the enquiry, prosecution witnesses, a Superintending Engineer and two Executive Engineers were also examined. They have denied that the fuse was oversize and they have, in fact, stated that after the wires snapped, the fuse had blown off. The submission, therefore, was that the report of the Committee of high officials mentioned in the memo of charges was never placed in the enquiry. The prosecution witnesses themselves had deposed to the contrary. Thus, it was a case of no evidence for charge no. 2 and the matter of punishment against the petitioner was not justified. On charge no. 4, these witnesses had also deposed of the presence of the petitioner.