IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.155 of 2009 RAMYASH SINGH, S/O LATE RAM PRIT SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MOHANI, P.S. BIKRAMGANJ, P.O SHEOPUR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. -APPELLANT Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOAD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. SRI J.P. YADAV, JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOAD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1. -RESPONDENTS FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. KAMLA LAL SRIVASTAVA FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr. VINAY KIRTI SINGH 4 23.04.2009 It is the case of the Electricity Board, the respondent in this case, that while the writ petitioner was acting in the capacity of Executive Engineer in the Stores huge loss was found out. One S.B. Bhattacharya was working under him as Assistant Store Keeper who superannuated on 31st July, 1992 and handed over charges to the next incumbent. At that time one Brijnandan Lal Agrawal was posted as Assistant Engineer and Anandi Kumar Singh was posted as Junior Store Keeper who took over charge from S.B. Bhattacharya, one of them were charge 2 sheeted. The writ petitioner was charge sheeted under six counts. The Enquiry Officer found that charges no.2, 3 and 6 were not proved. Charges no.1 and 5 were partially proved and 4th fully proved. Charge no.4 was that he did not take disciplinary action against Anandi Kumar Singh, Junior Store Keeper, for not carrying out written instructions while taking charge. Charge no.1 which was partially proved is that he did not carry out instructions in the proper way, while charge was handed over by S.B. Bhattacharya, the Junior Store Keeper to A.K. Singh. But charge no.5 is also that on refusal of the duty by the Assistant Engineer, Brijnandan Lal Agrawal, he did not personally supervise the handing over of the store. After the above the second show cause notice was issued which is reproduced by the learned single Judge which is as follows: “(ii) Why not maximum deduction permissible under law may be made from the amount, if any payable to him, consequent upon his dismissal, to partly recover the loss of Rs.1,11,25,722/- (Rupees one crore eleven lacs twenty five thousand seven hundred and twenty two) only caused by him through his personal acts of omission and commission. Failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter and action as proposed will be taken against him. Order:- Ordered that a signed copy of Resolution together with an authenticated copy of findings of the enquiring officer be forwarded to Shri Ram Yash Singh, Electrical Executive Engineer (under suspension, Board’s Hdqrs, Patna.” 3 One of the contentions of the writ petitioner is that what was proved in the enquiry and allegations in the charges and the reasons for punishment imposed in the second show cause notice were different. In the charges the amount stated to have been leveled due to following procedures were not made. It was also pointed out that when the case was taken against Assistant Engineer who was incharge of the State a Division Bench of this Court directed to reconsider the matter as second show cause notice was not strictly in accordance with the finding of the enquiry authority and, therefore, keeping the employee under suspension directed to issue second show cause notice and take a final decision. Single Bench of this Court earlier set aside the disciplinary action but the Division Bench passed the following order in LPA 1356 of 1998. “Only for that reason and for on other, we are inclined to interfere with the order under appeal and accordingly, while we set aside the order under appeal we also quash the punishment order, and remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority with a direction to pass the final order ignoring that part of the second show cause notice which proposed punishment of dismissal and for recovery of loss of Rs.1,11,25,722/- having regard to the fact that the respondent is under suspension, within a period of two months from today.” 4 It is submitted that after that disciplinary authority issued fresh show cause notice and on that basis fresh order was passed by the disciplinary authority imposing lighter punishment. Ground of attack against the enquiry, findings, second show cause notice and dismissal order etc are identical in this case also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this case also with the above quoted relief passed by the Division Bench in LPA no. 1356 of 1998. (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad