IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.821 of 2000 Deo Bardhan Prasad son of late Ram Sarup Das resident of village Longhoura, P.O. Poari, P.S.-Harnaut(Nalanda), Distt.-Nalanda. -------------------Appellant. Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Seceretary, Bihar State Electricty Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, Department of General Administration, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. Sri B.P. Dutta (Enquiry Officer) Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Dumka-------------------------------------------------Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Bimlendu Mishra, Advocate For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, Advocate ------------ 8. 15.11.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.2.2000 of the learned single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. no.12059 of 1998 where the appellant has chosen to question the punishment order contained in Resolution no.1261 dated 20.8.1998. Learned single Judge, who heard the matter, has observed in the judgment that original file has been looked into and it has been found that the order of demotion has been passed after issuance of second show cause notice and also he was given opportunity of hearing and participating in day to day departmental proceeding. The allegation supposed to be dereliction of duty in checking power theft and misconduct having connived with consumers in the matter of power theft. In the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is submitted before this Court that there is perversity in the findings of the enquiry 2 officer. The enquiry officer has found the appellant guilty of charges nos.1,2,3,4 &7 and gave a second show cause notice also before passing the order of punishment. In the absence of any violation of principle of natural justice and when it is observed by the learned single Judge that adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant and in the absence of any such material available to show that perversity is prevailing in the findings of the enquiry report, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the order of learned single Judge. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Vikash Jain, J. )