IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14863 of 2005 Jit Narayan Singh, son of late Ramanuj Singh, resident of Village- Tarwan, P.O. Arap Via- Bikram, P.S. Naubatpur, District- Patna ------ - Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2.General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Magadh Supply Area, Gaya. 3.Electrical Superintending Engineer, Rohtas Electrical Circle, Sasaram. 4. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sasaram --- Respondents. -------- 9. 6.11.2008 Heard Mr. Ajay Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.2.2005 (Annexure-1), issued under the signature of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, whereby a fresh departmental proceeding has been ordered for. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, posted as accounts assistant at Bikram. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for negligence in discharge of official duties and failure to deposit the Government revenue in the Bank. The Executive 2 Engineer, Sasaram, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report dated 7.4.2004. The General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer, Magadh Circle, Gaya, found the report to be un-satisfactory, and set aside the enquiry report. A new Enquiry Officer has been appointed by the impugned order. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned disciplinary authority has not assigned any reason while setting aside the first enquiry report. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) 1971(2) SCC 102 ( K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise Shillong (ii) (2002) 10 SCC 473 ( S. Ramanathan Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and others.) (Paragraph no.8) (iii) 2008(1) P.L.J.R. 718 (Ayodhya Prasad Sinha Vs. The Joint Secretary (General Administration Dept.) The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.) (iv) 2008(2) P.L.J.R.R. 456( Kameshwar Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (Paragraph nos. 6, 9 and 10) He next submits that the fresh enquiry is only meant to harass the petitioner, being the 4th one. He lastly submits that, according to the counter affidavit, the enquiry has been concluded but copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished to him. 3 Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that it was open to the learned disciplinary authority to set aside the report of the first Enquiry Officer if he found it to be unsatisfactory. Law is sell settled that if he had disagreed with the enquiry report and desired to take action without a fresh enquiry, then it was imperative for him to record reasons for disagreement to be conveyed to the petitioner to enable him to show-cause. The position is quite different in the present case inasmuch as the learned disciplinary authority found fault with the enquiry and/or the enquiry report, it was open to him to set aside the same and has ordered for a fresh enquiry. He has not proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report. The materials on record do not in the least create an impression in my mind that the enquiry report has been set aside, and a fresh enquiry ordered for, to harass the petitioner. The allegations prima facie are of serious in nature, inasmuch as the petitioner did not deposit the Government revenue in the Bank. It appears from the counter affidavit that the enquiry has been concluded and the report has been submitted. It goes without saying that the learned disciplinary 4 authority shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and the established procedure. He shall serve a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner before he proceeds in the matter. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)