IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.764 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 249 of 2004 =================================================== 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Secretary, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Personnel Administrative Officer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-II, Muzafarpur 6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, T.R. Circle, Patna 7. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Patna 8. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Grid, Sub Station, Jakkanpur, Patna .... .... Appellants Versus Jagat Prasad Rai, son of Sri Nabab Rai, Resident of village-Ranipur, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District-Patna .... .... Respondents =================================================== 6 15-12-2011 Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and also as the other sides have no objection, the same is allowed and the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.249 of 2004. The respondent being the petitioner in the writ petition is aggrieved by office order no.1407 dated 16.04.2002 as contained in Annexure -12 whereunder he has been dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding initiated against him for abusing the Superior Officer. He is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 30.07.2002 as contained in Annexure-14, whereunder the punishment imposed upon him has been affirmed. The learned Single Judge after having heard the matter and 2 considering the finding of guilt recorded against the writ petitioner- respondent herein has directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment awarded to him in the light of the length of service rendered by him and award the punishment of compulsory retirement and for such consideration two months time was granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Aggrieved by such direction the present appeal has been preferred by the Bihar State Electricity Board. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board that the allegations against the respondent-herein was of serious in nature and a criminal case has also been lodged against him under Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but even though Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved he was found guilty of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. It was found by the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceeding that he used physical force against the officers concerned which was proved in the departmental proceeding and, accordingly, he was dismissed from service vide order as contained in Annexure -12 and the dismissal order was also affirmed vide order contained in Annexure-14. The learned counsel further argued that the direction of the learned Single Judge to the authority to reconsider the punishment awarded to the petitioners in the light of the length of service rendered by him and award the punishment of compulsory retirement, goes beyond the scope of writ petitioner as there is no finding assessed in the enquiry report of the Inquiry Officer which violates the principles of natural justice. It has also been further contended that this Court can interfere with the disciplinary proceeding if there is any perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer which violates 3 the principles of natural justice. In absence of any such finding available on the record, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner respondent-herein has submitted that even though the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but he was acquitted by the trial Court for other charges merely because he has used only the physical force and, therefore, this is not a case where punishment of dismissal from service can be imposed upon the petitioner respondent-herein. The punishment imposed upon him is too harsh. We also had an occasion to go through the material available on record as also the judgment passed by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No.933 of 2001 dated 29th October, 2005. It appears that a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner respondent-herein under Sections 323, 307, 353/144 of the Indian Penal Code and the Court below finds that wherein the charges for the offence under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied sections were not proved, the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was proved and, therefore he was acquitted. But however as the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding has found the respondent guilty for the misconduct but in absence of any material placed before us with regard to any perversity which violates the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the appeal is allowed. ASHWINI /- (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)