IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11244 of 2010 SHYAM SUNDAR PRASAD CHAURASIA, S/O SRI JAMUNA PRASAD MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE PUNJABI MOHALLA, NAYA BAZAR LAKHISARAI IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKHISARAI,AT PRESENT POSTED AS ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF G.M. CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, BARAUNI THERMAL POWER STATION,IN THE DISTRICT OF BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1. 3. THE CHAIRMAN,BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY,BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. ----------- 03. 27.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment, appellate orders dated 25.6.2009 and 25.8.2009, Annexures-1 and 2. It is submitted on his behalf that while disposing of the appeal, the appellate authority did not consider the points raised in the memo of appeal that in the light of the policy decision of the State Government to extend all facilities to the agriculture connection holders, there was no occasion for him to demand additional security from the agriculture connection holders, as such direction has already been given in all the circles of the Board. It has further been averred in the memo of appeal that if petitioner failed to collect additional security amount from the agriculture connection holder his superior i.e. Accountant, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Revenue and the Executive Engineer should have demanded and recovered the additional security amount from the - 2 - agriculture connection holder. 3. Aforesaid points taken in the appeal does not appear to have been discussed in the appellate order dated 25.8.2009, Annexure- 2, in the circumstances, the appellate order does not consider the grounds raised in support of the appeal. In my opinion, therefore the appellate order is vitiated for non-consideration of the points raised in the memo of appeal and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass fresh order taking into account the submission raised in the memo of appeal, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the appellate authority. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)