Letters Patent Appeal No.1000 of 2007 Against the judgment dated 08.10.2007 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC 6077of 2005. ================================================== Amar Nath Jha S/o late Janardan Jha, R/o Mohalla-Miscot, Lane no.3, Club Road, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Appellant Versus 1.The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Through Chairman, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 5. The Financial Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 6. The Deputy Director of Accounts (Sectt.), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 7. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Giridih. .... .... Respondents ================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. JITENDRA NATH For the Respondents : M/s. Vinay Kirti Singh, Vijay Kumar Verma & Akhileshwar Singh ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against 2 the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.10.2007 passed in CWJC no. 6077 of 2005 wherein the appellant has chosen to question the order passed by the learned single Judge confirming the order of 10% cut in pension invoked by the respondent Board, Annexure-11 followed by Annexure-12. 2. The appellant was charge sheeted on the ground of dereliction of duty as fire caused loss and devastation of equipment and machinery installed at the sub-station of Kathara on 26.12.1998. A departmental enquiry was conducted and second show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 04.05.2002 and a reply was also filed vide Annexure-8 purported to be under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. He has submitted explanation but by Annexure-11 respondent no.4 inflicted the punishment of cut of 10% of the pension under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. That has been challenged by the appellant herein before the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge has held that the enquiry was initiated against the appellant. He was given an opportunity to show cause and the order of punishment has been passed. It is also held by the learned single Judge 3 that this is not a case of no material or evidence against the appellant and it is not the case of giving opportunity of evidence and the appellant was given the opportunity based on the material. The respondent Board has come to the conclusion to inflict punishment withholding the pension of 10% cut on the basis that services of the appellant was not satisfactory. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the appellant has not offered an opportunity of producing the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the order of punishment of 10% cut in pension under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules is not in accordance with law and hence to be set aside. It is also contended that though the appellant superannuated the Enquiry Officer has to take permission of the Board. Learned counsel appearing for the Board has submitted that the occurrence took place in 1998 and he retired on 31.12.2000, within a period of two years, as he retired there is no necessity for the Disciplinary Authority to seek permission of the Board as the period of four years has not passed. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent-Board that opportunity was accorded to him 4 and the case of the appellant is based only on surmises and conjecturs. 4. We also had an occasion to see the order passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC no. 6077 of 2005. The reply given by the appellant to the second show cause would go to show that the appellant has never raised any plea with regard to the action of the Disciplinary Authority of not affording the opportunity and not following the principle of natural justice. In absence of such plea, in the reply to second show cause, that is, Annexure-10, raised before the learned single Judge or before us, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Patna High Court, The 06th July, 2011 AAhmad/(NAFR) (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)