VAKIL PRASAD SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITHHOLDING of five increments and inflicting certain punishments for the charges of demand and receipt of bribe money have been challenged before the learned single Judge. By the delinquent the only ground urged before the learned single Judge was that some of the documents demanded from the authorities have not been furnished to him. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the documents aforesaid were furnished to the delinquent and held that withholding of five increments and inflicting other punishments were not illegal. Having not been satisfied with the findings of the learned single Judge, the delinquent has filed this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. It is noticed that in respect of various charges, including charge No. 1 with regard to receipt of bribe money, the enquiry officer filed his report dated 19th August, 1987, stating that none of the charges has been proved. However, on 11th September, 1998 the disciplinary authority differing with the views, taken by the enquiry officer, issued a second show -cause notice to the appellant. Despite the reply submitted by the appellant, the disciplinary authority by order dated 9th April, 1999 imposed various punishments, including withholding of five increments.

(3.) IT has been brought to our notice that in respect to illegal gratification separate charge -sheet has been filed by the Investigating Agency. However, from the order dated 7th December, 1990, passed by Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2049 of 1990, it is clear that since the investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police and not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, order taking cognizance has been quashed and an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is competent to investigate the matter, had been directed to investigate afresh and file final form.