IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.652 of 2008 BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. Versus MD.ZOBAIR ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 25th August, 2008. This appeal suffers from delay of 87 days. For condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 5095 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, for the reasons set out in the application, we find no justification in admitting the appeal. 2. From the order dated 26th May, 2000 passed by the disciplinary authority, it transpires that with regard to first charge there was sufficient explanation by the delinquent. As a matter of fact the disciplinary authority found the said explanation satisfactory. 3. On careful perusal of charge no.2, it transpires that it is interlinked and interconnected with first charge. If that be so, the explanation with regard to the first charge having been found satisfactory, we find no justification in the observation of the disciplinary authority that the explanation put forth by the delinquent with regard to charge no.2 was not satisfactory. - 2 - 4. As regards charge no.3, the allegation is that in the eventful night, the watchman was granted leave and although the delinquent was sleeping in the nearby office, he did not make noise. In our view, this charge cannot stick on the delinquent. Merely because the delinquent was sleeping in a nearby office, he might not have been aware as to what happened in the office next to it. Nothing has been pointed out nor has been brought on record that it was possible for the delinquent to know that theft was being committed in the nearby office. If the delinquent granted leave to the watchman in the night the event occurred, for want of any evidence or material on record, it cannot be assumed that the delinquent had any idea that theft was likely to happen that night. 5. For all these reasons, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the matter ought to have been remitted to the disciplinary authority by the Single Judge does not deserve to be accepted. 6. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. 7. This disposes of the limitation petition (I.A. No. 5095 of 2008) as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-