IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4454 of 2002 Braj Kishor Gupta, Son of Shri Gani Sao, resident of Village- Jivanpur, Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda. ..........Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey road, Patna. 3. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone- III, Bihar State Electricity Board, Gaya. 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, New Punaichak, Patna. 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, New Punaichak, Patna. 6. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ........Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate. ................. 13. 23.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 petitioner has been awarded a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment in pay without cumulative effect. Besides that, for the period of suspension it has been decided that petitioner would be paid only 50% of his pay as Subsistence Allowance and for the period of suspension beyond two years he would get 90% of pay as - 2 - Subsistence Allowance. At the relevant time petitioner was Assistant Operator, Transmission Sub-Division, Jakkanpur, Patna and as per charge, in spite of order of Superior Officer he did not submit his original matriculation certificate till he was suspended by order of the Board dated 29.12.1998. Subsequently under orders of the Board he was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which a detailed inquiry was conducted. As per inquiry report the charge that petitioner ignored the direction and orders of his Superior Officer made through various letters dated 29.07.1997, 02.06.1998, 29.06.1998 and 18.11.1998 and did not submit his original matriculation certificate for verification, was found established in part by the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner was given opportunity to file second show cause. By the impugned order dated 13.03.2002, the disciplinary authority has indicated that from the inquiry report, the deposition of witnesses and relevant records it appeared that the petitioner disregarded the order of his Controlling Officer and deposited the required certificate in original after two years. After considering the second - 3 - show cause submitted by the petitioner the impugned order of punishment has been passed. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that receipt of most of the letters except letter dated 29.10.1997 has been denied by the petitioner and it was his stand that earlier he had submitted original matriculation certificate as well as its attested copy, and after verification the original had been returned to him and hence the demand was being made under some misconception or only to harass him. It is not in dispute that immediately after his suspension on 29.12.1998 the petitioner produced his original matriculation certificate. This fact is clear from petitioner’s letter dated 29.01.1999 contained in Annexure -8 as well as receipt granted by the concerned official on 06.01.1999 as appearing on Annexure-18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly when there is no dispute that petitioner’s matriculation certificate was not genuine and it was so found even after report obtained from Bihar School Examination Board, it is clear that petitioner had a valid and probable defence against the charge that he had not - 4 - disobeyed the direction of his Controlling Officer for production of original matriculation certificate. His conduct in producing the matriculation certificate, since he came to know about his suspension also shows the bona fide of his defence that he had not received the earlier letters except letter dated 29.10.1997. For the little delay in producing the matriculation certificate, petitioner has already been harassed and subjected to suspension for three years and a departmental proceeding which commenced in the year 1999. No doubt petitioner had an appellate forum by way of preferring appeal before the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board but after such long delay and having kept the writ petition pending since the year 2002 in this Court, it does not deem desirable or in the interest of justice to relegate the petitioner to the appellate forum. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the facts discussed above this Court is of the view that the petitioner should not be subjected to any further punishment or harassment in view of facts noticed above which show that the charge was not at all of serious nature. Since the suspension of the petitioner for three - 5 - years is a fait accompli and can not be revoked, as a result of aforesaid facts and discussion, the punishment of stoppage of increment of pay for one year is set aside. The matter of fixing salary for the period of suspension is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration in the light of discussion made above. It is expected that a fair decision shall be taken in the matter at the earliest, preferably within three months. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Vikash/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)