IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2095 of 2010 KAMDEO SINGH S/O LATE BHAGWAT SINGH R/O VILL- CHEIN, P.S MADANPUR, DISTT- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PATNA 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA 5. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA For the Petitioner :-M/s Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv., Onkar Kr., Naval Kishore Singh, Advocates. For the B.S.E.B. :- Mr. N.K. Ojha, Advocate. ----------- 02. 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board) and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution of the Board dated 23.1.2009, Annexure-1, whereunder punishment imposed under resolution of the Board dated 27.11.1998 has been affirmed on the ground that out of 2184 kg, 172 Kg of copper wire was found short at his end. In this connection, petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.4519 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court under orders dated 2.7.2008, Annexure-12 directing the Board to reconsider the matter in the light of the cause shown by the petitioner under letter no.59 dated 17.1.1994, Annexure-7. Having considered the matter in the light of the directions of this Court the Board having taken into account Annexure-7 has passed the impugned resolution dated 23.1.2009 reiterating the punishment imposed earlier. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the 2 Board has considered the case of the petitioner in the light of his show cause reply dated 17.1.1994, Annexure—7 but while doing so the authorities of the Board did not take into account the findings of the inquiry team constituted under office order no.5385 dated 4.10.1993, bearing Memo No.996 dated 4.10.1993 referred to in the show cause reply dated 17.1.1994 which is dated 24.2.1994 and is contained in Annexure-4 to this application. It is further submitted that the authorities have also not taken into account the audit report dated 4.12.1993, Annexure-5 and according to the counsel for the petitioner as the relevant documents, namely, the report of the inquiry team as also the audit report, Annexures-4 and 5 have not been considered, the impugned order of punishment should be set aside with direction to the authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of not only the show cause reply but also the report of the inquiry team and the audit report, Annexures-4 and 5. 3. Counsel for the Board has opposed the prayer. He states that on the earlier occasion this Court while passing order dated 2.7.2008, Annexure-12 directed the Board to consider the show cause reply filed by the petitioner dated 17.1.1994, Annexure-7 but as this Court had not asked the authorities to look into the report of the inquiry team and the audit report, the same was not looked into and this Court should not ask the authorities of the Board at this belated stage to reconsider the matter in the light of the enquiry and audit 3 report. I regret not to accept such submission of the counsel for the Board. If the counsel who was appearing before this Court on 2.7.2008 did not bring to the notice of this Court the report of the inquiry team constituted by the Board itself to investigate the shortage of copper wire at the hands of the petitioner as also the audit report then for such laches on the part of the counsel appearing before this Court on 2.7.2008 this Court should not hold the petitioner responsible for such laches as for laches on the part of the counsel the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer. 4. In appreciation of the aforesaid fact, I set aside the impugned order dated 23.1.2009, Annexur-1 and direct the Board to reconsider the matter not only in the light of the show cause reply dated 17.1.1994, Annexure-7 but also the report of the inquiry team and the audit report dated 24.2.1994 and 4.12.1993, Annexures-4 and 5 and if there is no shortage of copper wire at the hands of the petitioner, he may not be held liable for the cost of copper wire. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)