IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6605 of 2005 ANIL KUMAR SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. WITH CWJC No.6622 of 2005 SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. WITH CWJC No.7300 of 2005 JAI RAM SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. WITH CWJC No.7345 of 2005 ARUP KUMAR GHOSE Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. For the petitioner : Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee, Advocate. For the B.S.E.B. : M/S Subhash Kishore Verma, Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocates. ----------- 3. 8.7.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). 2. Petitioners in all the writ applications at the relevant time served as Switch Board Operators at the Power Sub-Station at Chousa within the District of Buxar. They have filed this writ application questioning the validity of the punishment order dated 7.6.2001duly annexed with the separate writ applications, which order has also been affirmed in appeal after modifying the punishment under orders dated 11.3.2005 contained in Annexures to the different writ applications. 3. Petitioners were served with the memo of charge dated 8.9.2000, Annexure-8 alleging that while they served as Switch Board Operators they could not prevent the theft committed in the premises - 2 - of the Power Sub-station. Having received the charge sheet petitioners submitted their reply asserting that they being the Switch Board Operators cannot be held liable for theft in the premises of the Sub- station as the theft took place after their duty hours and they did not have the means to prevent such theft. 4. The Inquiry Officer considered the materials in support of memo of charge dated 8.9.2000 as contained in Annexure-8 in C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2005 as also the written defence of the petitioners and submitted his report dated 28.1.2001 as contained in Annexure-10 in C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2005 whereunder he exonerated all these petitioners of the charge of theft levelled against them. 5. The departmental authorities considered the Inquiry Report but differing therewith issued second show cause notice dated 25.4.2001 as contained in Annexure-11 in C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2005 but perusal thereof does not indicate that any reason differing with the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer has been indicated. Petitioners having received the second show cause notice submitted their reply and having considered the same punishment order was passed by the authorities of the Board without indicating any reason as to how petitioners while serving as Switch Board Operators were responsible for the theft committed in the premises of the Power Sub- station. The job of the petitioners as Switch Board Operators is to operate power system in the Sub-station. They are not the guards of the Sub-station and could not have avoided theft in the premises while they were of duty. - 3 - 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the punishment order dated 7.6.2001, Annexure-13 in C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2005 as also the appellate order dated 11.3.2005, Annexure-14 in C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2005 are fit to be quashed which is, accordingly quashed and the Board is directed to give a decent burial to the allegations contained in the charge sheet. 7. All the writ applications are, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)