IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2952 of 2006 BASANT KR. SINHA, SON OF LATE GUPTESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATAUNA P.S. GIRIAK DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF ENGINEER CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA PATNA PATNA AT 8, SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA. For the petitioner : M/s. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocates. For the Board : M/s. Jainendra Kr. Pushkar, Shiv Shankar Prasad, N.K.Sinha, Advocates. ----------- 05. 20.09.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.2002, Anneuxre-9, whereunder he has been punished after conclusion of the departmental proceeding holding that petitioner shall pay the penal rent for the period of unauthorized occupation of the quarter and that he shall not be paid anything beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order of the Chairman of the Board communicated to him by the Joint Secretary under letter No.298 dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-10/A, whereunder appeal filed against the punishment order dated 7.10.2002 has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner - 2 - that aforesaid two orders have been passed without complying the requirements of natural justice as the Enquiry Officer, who submitted enquiry report exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him but without serving the reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer punishment order dated 7.10.2002, Annexure-9 has been passed. The appeal filed against the punishment order has been rejected under communication bearing letter dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-10A. It is further submitted that as the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to have served on the petitioner the reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but without serving reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer punishment order has been passed, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that another similarly situate employee Sri Tuntun Jha who was also charged with unauthorized occupation of the quarter was exonerated from the proceeding after realizing penal rent under resolution dated 4.6.2001, Annexure-13. 4. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, it does not appear that before passing the - 3 - punishment order dated 7.10.2002, Annexure-9 the authorities of the Board served on the petitioner the reasons for differing with the findings of exoneration recorded by the Enquiry Officer, in the circumstances, this Court has no option but to hold that punishment order dated 7.10.2002, Annexure-9 has been passed without complying the requirement of natural justice, which is accordingly set aside. The appellate order communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-10/A is also quashed as the same has been passed ignoring the submission noted above. Having set aside the punishment, appellate order, I remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority i.e. the Joint Secretary of the Board to pass fresh order in accordance with law taking into account the resolution of the Board bearing Memo No.648 dated 4.6.2001, Annexure-13 as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Joint Secretary. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)