IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1111 of 2009 GOPAL PRASAD, son of late Deep Narayan Prasad,resident of Sanjay GandhiNagar, Road No.8 P.SHanuman Nagar, District Patna—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 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Patna----------Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant :Mr.Ajey Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr.Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate ----- 3. 16.2.2010 Heard Mr.Ajey Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant-petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No.4949 of 2003 assailing the order of punishment imposed by the Bihar State Electricity Board whereby there was a direction for recovery of Rs.97,000/- on instalment basis at Rs.5000/- per month. The learned Single Judge after analyzing the material on record has expressed the view as follows : “The fact that the Certificate Proceeding had been initiated is not denied. If that being so, it is clear that the Court can not benefit or make profit on account of realization of arrears from two sources one the Certificate Proceeding from the 2 consumer itself and two from the petitioner. Having initiated certificate proceedings for recovery of the dues, it was for the Board to expedite the matter and expedite the same but having taken step of instituting certificate case it can not at the same time demand the same money for the same cause of action from the petitioner. The realization of this amount is compensatory. It is not a penal imposition of penalty. Compensation can not be twice over for the same cause. Thus the penalty order which makes the petitioner liable to pay arrears amount of Rs. 97,000/- as mentioned in the penalty order is thus found to be vitiated and can not be supported in fact or in law. To that extent, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as affirmed in appeal is set aside.” It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the period of suspension should have been treated as duty. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered opinion, the order of suspension was revoked few months before his superannuation and the period of suspension was treated as such. The learned Single Judge has set aside the punishment and has not interfered with the period of suspension. We are of the considered opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge 3 does withstand close scrutiny and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/