BIRENDRA PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. These two petitioners have challenged the office orders contained in Memo Nos. 1267 and 1274 dated 2.3.2000 issued by the respondent-Board wherein the petitioners have been awarded (a) stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, (b) debarment from promotion to the higher post for one year when it falls due, (c) permanent withholding of pay and allowances for the period during which they were under suspension except subsistence allowance and further the period of suspension shall not be counted for the purpose of granting increment, and (d) punishment of censure to be entered into their annual character role for the year 1994-95.

(2.) These petitioners were working as Operators at the relevant point of time i.e. on 23.2.1995 in night shift Group-B at Patratu Thermal Power Project, Patratu under the respondent-Board and incident occurred in Boiler Drum Unit No. 9, which caused loss of generation and consequent financial loses to the tune of rupees one crore to the Board because of closing down of the Unit for several months. These petitioners were proceeded against depart-mentally and an enquiry report was submitted vide Annexure-6 by the Enquiry Officer dated 1.9.1997. The Enquiry Officer, however, exonerated the present petitioners as he found that all the four workmen of Group-B have performed their duties satisfactorily, which included these two petitioners also. Thereafter, vide Annexure-7 dated 6.2.1999, the second show cause notice was issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary by the order of the respondent-Board, proposing major punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect, debarring from promotion to higher post for next five years as well as censure to be recorded in their ACR for the year 1994-95 and also that the petitioners should not be entitled to anything except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

(3.) The, ground for challenging the impugned order on behalf of the petitioners primarily is that the Disciplinary Authority in the second show Cause notice did not show any reason for differing with the Enquiry Officer, who had exonerated these petitioners. Further, ground for challenging the impugned order on behalf of the petitioners is that even the order of punishment did not show any application of mind so far as the contention of the petitioners to the reply of the second show cause is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, 2009 2 SCC 570 to substantiate his contention.