IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.907 of 2008 ------ Dinesh Sharma, son of late Arjun Sharma, resident of village- Mainpura Chanda, P.S.Mehandia, District Arwal. … … Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 800001. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 800001. 4. Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 800001. Respondents/ Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Dr. K.N.Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate Dr. Kamaldeo Sharma, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 19th November, 2008. Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of two days for which an application (I.A.No.6746/2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and that we do, we are of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of any substance. 2. Although, senior counsel for the appellant sought to urge that the appellant has been punished on an allegation which was not part of the show cause notice, and, therefore, the order of punishment is bad in law, but we find that it is not so. - 2 - 3. That the appellant has suffered minor punishment is apparent from the fact that the punishment is for stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The appellant was junior engineer posted at Bankipur Sub-division. Within his jurisdiction one meter (consumer no. 21554-17-238048000) was found non-functional for about ten years. It has been found that had the petitioner carried out the inspection even in routine manner periodically, it would have come to notice that the said meter was not functional and the Board might have not suffered loss because of the negligence of the delinquent. As a matter of fact, the punishment awarded to the petitioner for his lapse is mild. 4. Be that as it may, the punishment awarded to the appellant vide order dated 25th February, 2003 does not appear to suffer from any legal infirmity. The Single Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. 5. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. 6. This disposes of I.A.No.6746/2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil