IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10555 of 2004 ASHWINI KUMAR GUPTA Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD& ORS ----------- 5 20-8-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Bihar Electricity Board and learned counsel for Jharkhand Electricity Board where petitioner is now presently serving. Petitioner has challenged the order of punishment passed against him by the disciplinary authority as contained in annexure-2 dated 27-6-2002 and also the appellate order rejecting his appeal dated 16-2- 2004 contained in annexure-1. The relevant facts in brief are that discarded transformer oil in 72 drums was issued from the Hatia stores on 27-8-1993 for being transported to M/s Savita Chemicals at Bombay through the Transporter M/s All Round Carriers, Ranchi. It is not in dispute that as per orders of the superior officers petitioner received 72 drums from the stores and handed it over to the representative of the transporter who acknowleged the receipt on 27-8-1993 as is mentioned in the enquiry report (Annexure- 5). It appears that petitioner was given T.A. advance of Rs.4500/- for going to Bombay in connection with delivery of the discarded transformer oil in 72 drums at Bombay. He proceeded by train and at Bombay it was found that there was shortage of oil delivered by the transporter. Petitioner reported the matter to his superior officer. It appears that there being no written order of any superior officer that petitioner though a Junior Engineer, should have travelled as security guard on the three trucks carrying the oil drums, it was later on - 2 - construed by the superior officer that there had been verbal instruction to that effect and petitioner should have travelled with those trucks and therefore he was responsible for causing loss. It was also considered that petitioner should have filed a F.I.R. at Hatia police station for which he was directed by the Assistant Engineer but he took the stand that such F.I.R. should have been filed by the Assistant Engineer or the Incharge of the Stores. On account of aforesaid perception against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension on 24-8-95 and subjected to a departmental proceeding as per resolution dated 8-11-95. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 18-8-200 ( annexure-5 ) holding that petitioner should have travelled by truck to protect the interest of the Board and although there were no departmental rules or instructions authorizing a Junior Electrical Engineer to file F.I.R, he should have filed such F.I.R. Although the principles of natural justice, prima facie, appear to have been complied with in this case in holding the petitioner guilty of the charges but on careful reading of the enquiry report and after going through the relevant facts, noticed in brief above, this court finds that there was absolutely no material to hold that petitioner was required to escort the trucks personally and he was a competent officer to lodge F.I.R. in the matter. Hence, such findings against the petitioner are found to be without any material. Accordingly, the findings given against the petitioner by the enquiry officer as well as the orders contained in annexures 1 and 2 are quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to full salary for the period of suspension and he should be treated on duty for that period. The monetary benefits on that account shall be paid to the - 3 - petitioner within a period of three months. Proportionately, the dues of the petitioner on the aforesaid account for the period till Jharkhand Electricity Board was created shall be paid by the Bihar State Electricity Board and for the dues after that period, since petitioner has been posted at Jharkhand , shall be paid by the Jharkhand Electricity Board. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Naresh (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)