IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11974 of 2000 SADAN SHARMA Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BO ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate Dr. Kameshwar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent:- Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr.Subhash Kishore Verma, Advocate Mr. Jainendra Kr. “Pushkar”, Advocate. 6/ 18-Aug-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2). Petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk in the service of Respondent-Board. On a complaint by a Superior that he has abused the Superior Officer and has shown indiscipline, the petitioner was suspended and subjected to a departmental proceeding. After holding a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report against the petitioner on 23.12.1998 (Annexure-10) and on that basis the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of compulsory retirement to the petitioner. 3). Against the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, the Chairman of the Respondent-Board who has passed appellate order contained in Annexure-25 which has been communicated to the petitioner in the form of a 2 formal order dated 29.8.2000 (Annexure-24). The petitioner has challenged the appellate order by which his earlier punishment of compulsory retirement dated 21.4.1999 has been substituted with a punishment to reduce his rank from U.D. Assistant to L.D. Assistant in the primary scale so as to be placed at the bottom of the gradation list. It has also been ordered by the appellate authority that petitioner would not be entitled to anything beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and that he would not be entitled for salary for the period of compulsory retirement. 4). On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that as would appear from Annexure-15, an order passed by the appellate authority allegedly on 16.8.1999, impressed by the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the Superior Officer who had complained against the petitioner should be orally examined and allowed to be cross-examined, the appellate authority, the Chairman allowed such prayer and asked the Enquiry Officer to examine the complainant and allow his cross-examination and then submit such material for passing appropriate order in accordance with law so that interest of justice may be protected. The grievance of the petitioner is that further report submitted by the Enquiry 3 Officer was not given to the petitioner and that some documents demanded by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer on 21.8.1999 vide Annexure-17 were not furnished and therefore he did not cross-examine the Superior Officer who was examined on 25.8.1999. It is further grievance of the petitioner that he has raised grievance against the Enquiry Officer which was not considered by the appellate authority and the appellate authority acted illegally in calling for additional evidence for his own consideration rather he should have remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority. 5). In law, disciplinary proceeding are governed by principles of natural justice and if such principles are violated causing prejudice to the delinquent then the matter may be remitted back by this Court otherwise on merits it is not possible to interfere with the views of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority who are competent to grant suitable punishment to the delinquent employees. In this case, on a proper consideration of petitioner’s grievance and after going through the averments made in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit, particularly paragraphs-31 to 33 thereof, it is found that after petitioner’s request for oral examination and cross-examination of the complainant, a 4 Superior Officer, was accepted by the appellate authority, he suddenly made a demand for certain documents which according to authorities were only irrelevant and unrelated to the charge levelled against the petitioner. It is further apparent that although petitioner was aware of the disciplinary proceeding after passing of Annexure-15, he did not cross-examine the complainant officer. In such circumstances, there was hardly any material to be communicated to the appellate authority by way of a supplementary enquiry report. There could be no question of any prejudice to the petitioner on account of the alleged supplementary enquiry report not being given earlier. He was aware of all the facts and had the opportunity to address the appellate authority that passed the impugned order after hearing the petitioner. 6). In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)