ANIL KUMAR JHA Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.3.2000 issued by the respondents awarding punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, debarring from promotion for one year and also withholding payment of salary other than subsistence allowance.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority while issuing notice calling the petitioner to show cause has not specially and categorically stated the reasons of his disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority while disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer must give reasons of his disagreement. Since the mandatory requirement has not been complied with, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel. From perusal of the notice as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ application it appears that the disciplinary authority instead of recording specific reasons of disagreement simply stated that after considering the charge - sheet, written statement, deposition and report of the Inquiry Officer, it has been established beyond doubt that the petitioner did not take charge of the Boiler and also did not report to his superiors regarding abnormal boiler condition. The disciplinary authority has not mentioned as to which evidence recorded or brought on record which has either been ignored by the Inquiry Officer or has not been given proper weightage to that evidence.