IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1269 of 1995 DEO SIDH SINGH, SON OF RAJNANDAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- SALIMPUR, P.O.AND P.S. SANDESH, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR……………………………………………………………..APPELLANT Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SAID BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA- 1……………………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT ----------- For the appellant: Sri Banwari Sharma, Advocate Sri R.K. Sinha, Advocate For the respondent: Sri Dharmeshwar Mishra, Advocate ------------ 7. 30-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for Bihar State Electricity Board, the respondent. 2. This appeal is under Clause-10 of the letters patent of this Court and is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.1995 passed by a learned single Judge whereby a writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC. No.6133 of 1994 was dismissed. 3. The prayer made in the writ petition was for quashing of an order of dismissal dated 15.01.1994 appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The dismissal order was passed after a detailed disciplinary proceeding and full-fledged enquiry wherein the appellant had participated by filing his show-cause, cross-examining the witnesses produced by the respondent and by 2 adducing his own evidence. The copy of charges annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition shows that the charges were specific containing necessary details as to how demand of a bribe of Rs. 2000/- for an official work from a consumer of the Bihar State Electricity Board was made pursuant to which the bribe money was offered, accepted and then recovered from the pocket of the appellant. 4. Before the writ Court, the main issue raised on behalf of the appellant was that the copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the appellant earlier to service of second show- cause notice which contained a copy of the enquiry report. The grievance of the appellant was that the show-cause notice required the appellant to submit his reply as to why major punishment should not be awarded to him for the lapses on his part. According to learned counsel for the appellant, before issuance of such a show-cause notice a copy of the enquiry report should have been furnished and only after considering the comments of the appellant, the employer should have decided whether to issue second show-cause notice or not. 5. The writ Court considered the aforesaid submissions in detail and after extracting the contents of the 3 second show-cause notice and looking into the nature of evidence and other relevant materials it held that no prejudice was caused to the appellant on account of service of the copy of enquiry report along with show-cause notice. 6. We have also considered the aforesaid grievance of the appellant and we are in agreement with the views of the writ Court that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. It further transpires from a careful reading of the second show- cause notice that, in fact, the disciplinary authority had not given any findings of its own in respect of the charges levelled against the appellant and in substance the second show-cause notice was an opportunity to the appellant to furnish his comments against the enquiry report which was annexed with the second show- cause notice. 7. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors, (1993) 4 SCC 727, it was held in paragraph-29 that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee in respect of charges levelled 4 against him. Of course, in the said judgment it has also been held that non furnishing of report of the enquiry officer may not be sufficient to set aside the punishment and the courts should take upon themselves the duty of examining whether any prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee due to non furnishing of the enquiry report if the employee raises the plea of prejudice. 8. The writ Court has considered the aforesaid legal proposition in proper perspective and on facts it has held that there was sufficient evidence available on record to prove the charges and no prejudice had been caused to the appellant. In the facts of the case, we find no good reasons to differ with the findings of the writ Court. 9. The only other submission raised before us is that witnesses were not consistent as to from where the bribe money was recovered. On a specific query by the Court as to permissibility of a writ Court going into appreciation of evidence so as to finding out contradictions alleged, reliance was placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 9 SCC 78. In that case the departmental enquiry entailed only a minor penalty but the charges included an allegation that the delinquent had 5 demanded commission for payment of pay allowances. The Court found that the enquiry officer had not examined any witness from whom such demand was made. The witnesses merely stated that this was a probable inference because he was not disbursing the funds. One of the witnesses had deposed that some unknown person had told him about such demand. In such a factual context, the Apex Court held that the serious charges cannot be proved on mere probabilities and hearsay evidence. In paragraph-35 the Apex Court summarizes the law in the following terms:- “In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. 10. The aforesaid discussions clearly show that the aforesaid judgment has not enlarged the scope of judicial review in the matters relating to disciplinary proceeding. The only scope for a writ Court while exercising judicial review of disciplinary 6 action is to find out whether the findings are perverse or unreasonable. In the context of disciplinary proceeding a finding can be termed to be perverse or unreasonable or based on conjectures and surmises alone if there be no evidence at all in support of charge. In the present case, the writ Court had recorded after going through the relevant records that there is sufficient evidence to support the charges and the evidence is from independent source. 11. On a proper consideration of all the submissions, we come to a considered opinion that there is no legal or other infirmity in the order of the writ Court. The appeal is found to be without merits and is dismissed accordingly. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)