IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2672 of 2002 Umesh Yadav, S/o of Late Mahadeo Mahto, resident of village- Goachak, Post-Singhawal, P.S.- Sarmera, District-Nalanda. ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. The Nirdeshak Bibhagiya Karyawahi, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board, Patna-Sah- Engineering Conducting Officer. 5. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Secretary. 6. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 7. The General Manager Patratu Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh. ---------------------- Respondents. ---------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh, Adv. For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, JC to GA 5 ----------- 08 19.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Board and learned counsel for the State. On the relevant date i.e. 25.01.1999 petitioner was a Peon at Patratu Thermal Power Station, a unit of the Bihar State Electricity Board. As per charges available on records, on that date in the forenoon he locked the main entrance gate of administrative building resulting into dislocation of the work of the Board for entire forenoon. In spite of requests made by the Management and Officials he refused - 2 - to open the lock and hence his conduct was contrary to Standing Orders particularly in Clause 29 (B). His conduct was indicative of gross indiscipline. The inquiry report, which is contained in Annexure -1, discloses that petitioner tried to delay the proceeding against him. On 20th May, 1999 he submitted an application before the Inquiry Officer for collecting some information from Patratu Thermal Power Station and also for copy of a letter of Personnel Director of that institution. It is further mentioned in the inquiry report that on 21.06.1999 he made a demand of certain documents which were not related to the charges and hence suitable reply was given to him by a letter dated 05.07.1999. After considering the materials brought on record including oral evidence of the several witnesses examined on behalf of the Board, the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner’s comment was asked for and by the impugned order dated 11.05.2001 contained in Annexure-2, petitioner was dismissed from the service. After considering relevant materials, his appeal also appears to be dismissed by the - 3 - order communicated to the petitioner through letter contained in Annexure-1 dated 29.08.2001. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted that the Inquiry Officer has committed illegality in giving a finding against the petitioner without any evidence. It was further submitted that petitioner had requested for examination of several persons as witnesses through a letter dated 13.05.2000 but neither that request nor his request made through a letter dated 25.01.1999 asking for five documents, was accepted by the Inquiry Officer and hence petitioner has been deprived of fair opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding. From the inquiry report it appears that in the matter of demand of documents petitioner had submitted a letter on 20th May, 1999 i.e. after about four months of his letter dated 25.01.1999 in which he asked for one month’s time for filing written statement against the charges and the time required was only for collecting certain information from Patratu Thermal Power Establishment. Initially he had demanded documents on 21.06.1999 which were not found related to the charges and he was given a reply to that effect - 4 - on 05.08.1999. Those letters which are relevant but have not been brought on record, along with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer that petitioner wanted to delay the proceeding leads to the conclusion that at the relevant time petitioner had not asked for any further documents and list of five witnesses named and 100 others unnamed given on 25.11.2000 by Annexure 23 appears to be doubtful because it is not dealt with in the inquiry report and even if it was submitted by the petitioner, the same was apparently to delay the proceeding. Hence this Court finds that petitioner has not been prejudiced in his defence on account of non-supply of any material document. At appropriate time, he had not prayed for examining any person as witness on his behalf nor he examined himself as a witness in the proceeding. On going through the discussions made in the inquiry report, it is clear that several witnesses have substantiated the allegation made against the petitioner in the charge and the finding of the Inquiry Officer can not be said to be perverse. This Court finds no good reason to interfere with - 5 - the inquiry report in which it has been found that the charge against the petitioner has been established. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, the petitioner, a peon, kept the entire business of the Patratu Thermal Power Administrative Office at a standstill in the forenoon of 25.01.1999 by locking the main entrance gate and refusing the request made by the Superior Officer to open the gate. Considering the gravity of the charge this Court cannot hold that the quantum of punishment inflicted on the petitioner is disproportionate. The writ petitioner is dismissed. Vikash/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)