IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6580 of 2005 KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B. & ORS ----------- 04/ 08.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Storekeeper with the Board with effect from 31.12.2001. Ten days prior to his superannuation i.e. on 21.12.2001 he was served with charge sheet alleging shortage in the store for the period between 2.11.1972 to 4.11.1972 as also for the period between 11.4.1975 to 11.5.1976. In response to the charges, he submitted his written defence stating that the charges being levelled belatedly, the proceedings should be dropped. The authorities of the Board, however, proceeded and the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report holding him guilty of the allegation of shortage for the aforesaid period between 2.11.1972 to 4.11.1972 and 11.4.1976 to 11.5.1976. The enquiry report is dated 9.11.2002 and is contained as Annexure-5 to the Reply to the counter affidavit. After receipt of the enquiry report, the authorities of the Board passed the punishment order dated 8.7.2003, Annexure-2 to this application, whereunder his 1% pension has been withheld with further direction to withhold Rs. 1,32,057/- from the gratuity payable to him as the said amount was the 2 amount of loss attributed to the shortage. Petitioner assailed the said punishment order, Annexure-2 by filing appeal and in the appeal also he raised the same ground that charges being belated, the punishment order withholding his 1% pension as also a sum of Rs. 1,32,057/- payable as gratuity be set aside. The Board, however, rejected the appeal and the appellate order is dated 26.8.2004, which is contained in Annexure-4 to this application. 3. The original order and the appellate order dated 8.7.2003 and 26.8.2004, Annexures-2 and 4 are being assailed in the present writ application on the ground that the same be set aside as charge of shortage has been levelled against the petitioner belatedly as also on the ground that during the entire period of shortage different Storekeepers were posted and it is definitely not known who actually is responsible for the shortage in the store since the actual verification of the materials kept in the store was never made and the charges have only been levelled on the basis of the shortage noticed in the audit report. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the apex court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bani Singh and another, reported in 1990 Supreme Court 1308 as also a reasoned order of this Court dated 27.6.2008 passed CWJC No. 5969 of 2005 ( Shib Nath Jha vrs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & ors.). 3 4. Counsel for the Board has opposed the prayer with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit. He states that the charges may be belated, but the fact that there was shortage in the store is confirmed by the audit report, as such, according to him this Court should not interfere with the punishment order. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the shortage is alleged for the period between 2.11.1972 to 4.11.1972 and 11.4.1976 to 11.5.1976 during which period there was no verification in the store, as such, it is difficult for this Court to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Board that shortage took place while petitioner was in-charge of the store and, accordingly, the punishment order dated 8.7.2003, Annexure-2 as also the appellate order dated 26.8.2004, Annexure-4 are modified to the extent that the amount of gratuity, which has been withheld be released in favour of the widow of the original petitioner, who died during the pendency of this writ application and was substituted under orders dated 15.5.2007, within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)