IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10 of 2005 UMESH PRASAD Versus THE ADVISOR(H.R.D.)DEPT.OF TEL ----------- 07/ 3-Sep-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents, BSNL. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submission that the list of witnesses and other required details necessary for holding a detailed departmental proceeding were not given to the petitioner. The impugned order contained in Annexure-9 and other materials on record show that only opportunity of filing a representation was given to the petitioner because the very proposal was to award a minor punishment in accordance with Rule 16 of the C.C.S (C.C.A) Rules 1965. The Rules relating to procedure for awarding minor punishment have been followed and opportunity of hearing through representation has been given to the petitioner. After such opportunity the competent authorities have considered petitioner’s case and the minor punishment awarded to him has been maintained. It has been submitted that the authorities have erred in finding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct and in fact he had not assaulted or mishandled another employee of the Nigam. It is not for this Court to enter into the thickets of the facts, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) 2