IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12915 of 2000 Maharana Pratap Singh, son of late Dinanath Singh, resident of Village- Majhauan, P.S.Arrah Town, District-Bhojpur at Arrah ----Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board,Vidyut Bhawan,Patna ---- Respondents. ---------- 6. 14.11.2008 Heard Dr. Amar Nath Singh for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’), and its functionaries. It arises out of disciplinary proceedings which have resulted in petitioner’s dismissal from the services of the Board. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, posted as store assistant in the Board’s stores at Ara. In contemplation of a departmental proceeding, he was placed under suspension on 10.6.1987. An F.I.R. was lodged against him and others for shortage in the stores at Ara, and he was in custody as under-trial prisoner for 56 days. A decision was also taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and charge sheet dated 20.2.1990 was served on him. This was followed by additional charges served on 28.11.1990. By order dated 20.12.1991 2 (Annexure-8), the order of suspension was revoked. The petitioner did not submit his show-cause, nor participated in the enquiry proceeding at all. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 26.11.1994, whereby he found the petitioner guilty of the shortage of goods to the tune of Rs. 13, 24,654.55. Second show-cause notice was also served on him, followed by the order dated 17.10.1995 (Annexure- 1), whereby he has been dismissed from the services of the Board. The petitioner moved this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 11851 of 1995 (Maharana Pratap Singh & Ors. Vrs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.) which was disposed of on 14.2.1997 (Annexure-7), whereby the petitioner was directed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal. Thereafter he filed memorandum of appeal which has been rejected by the order dated 20.7.1998 (Annexure-2), passed by the Chairman of the Board, and the order of punishment has been upheld. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of the additional charge was not served on the petitioner. He further submits that the Chairman of the Board had no power to hear the appeal. He next submits that the allegations were not within the ambit of duties and functions of the store assistant. Learned counsel for the Board has supported the impugned action. He submits that the petitioner had been systematically working which resulted in such heavy shortage. The 3 petitioner was responsible for the shortage of Rs.13,24,654.55 which was proved by documentary evidence. He next submits that the petitioner had been acting in collusion with two other persons, the total losses to the Board had been to the tune of Rs. 39, 29,000 and on responsibility the petitioner has been apportioned to the extent of one third amount. He next submits that the writ petition suffers from un-explained delay. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the Board is right in his submission that the writ petition suffers from un-explained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. The appellate order is dated 20.7.1998, and the writ petition has been lodged in this Court on 11.12.2000. The writ petition does not offer any explanation, nor has learned counsel for the petitioner in spite of repeated queries been able to satisfy this Court. There is no need to proceed further in the matter and examine the other issues. However, I wish to examine the other issues because of the elaborate submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that he was not served with a copy of the additional charges. This grievance has not travelled beyond the oral submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner before me. The learned Enquiry Officer indeed recorded the finding that, in spite of adequate opportunity afforded to the petitioner, he completely ignored the enquiry proceeding and did not appear at all before the 4 Enquiry Officer. The contention, therefore, is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Chairman has no power to hear the memorandum of appeal. In spite of repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner was enable to substantiate the submission. The grievance once again did not travel beyond the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the allegations were beyond the ambit of the petitioner’s duties and functions as store assistant. This is basically an issue of fact and the petitioner ought to have agitated the same during the course of enquiry proceeding. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner did not raise this issue at all before the learned Enquiry Officer which can not be entertained in the writ petition. The contention is rejected. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)