Letters Patent Appeal No.1242 OF 2000 THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Appellant) Versus RANJEET KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY &A--------(Respondents) ------ Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 17-07-2000 passed by a Bench of this Court inC.W.J.C.No.6651/96 ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA KUMARI Shiva Kirti Singh & Rekha Kumari,JJ Heard the parties. Respondent no.4, Ranjeet Kumar Bandyopadhyay had preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 6651 of 1996 to assail Board’s Resolution No. 1087 dated 3-7-1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby he was inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service along with withholding of all retrial benefits so as to partly recover the loss of Rs. 1,11,25,722/- allegedly caused by the petitioner to the appellant Board 2. From the materials on record it is clear that by an order dated 29-7-1994 disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and one Devendra Prasad, Chief Engineer (Commercial ), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna was appointed as enquiring officer to conduct the proceedings. After the enquiry commenced on 28th January, 1995, the enquiry officer superannuated from service on 31-1-1995. Thereafter he concluded the disciplinary proceeding and submitted report against the writ petitioner on 3-4-1995. According to the enquiry report charges no. 1,2 and 4 were found fully proved and charge no.3 was found to be partly proved against the writ petitioner. After giving opportunity of filing second show cause the writ petitioner was inflicted with punishments already noted above - 2 - by the resolution of the Board dated 3-7-1996. 3. From the judgment and order under appeal dated 17th July,2000 it transpires that submissions were advanced on behalf of writ petitioner that there was no charge framed against him in respect of the allegation and finding that he had caused financial loss to the Board and in absence of any finding to this effect in the enquiry report he could not have been dismissed from service by including such an allegation in the order of dismissal. Besides, this point, on behalf of writ petitioner another point was urged that disciplinary enquiry against the writ petitioner was entrusted to Shri Devendra Prasad in his capacity as Chief Engineer of the Board, since he was holding such post at that time and hence after Shri Devendra Prasad ceased to be the Chief Engineer on account of his superannuation on 31-1- 1995, he should not have continued with the disciplinary proceeding which was not entrusted to him in the capacity of a retired Chief Engineer of the Board. 4. It appears that the later point found favour with the writ court and on that ground alone the writ petition was allowed by holding that the enquiry report was not by a competent authority. But after quashing the order of punishment dated 3-7-1996 the writ court gave a liberty to the authorities of the Board that they could pass fresh order after proceeding with the matter afresh. 5. On behalf of appellant, Bihar State Electricity Board it has been submitted that there is no specific rule governing disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Board to the effect that the enquiry officer must always be a serving employee of the Board. It is not in dispute that Bihar Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules 1930 have been adopted by the Board to govern disciplinary - 3 - proceedings against its employees as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Murari Sinha Vrs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 205. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has advanced submissions on the basis of the word “ the officer conducting the enquiry” as occurring in Rule 55 of the aforesaid Rules, that only a serving officer can conduct a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 55 of the Rules which is necessary for awarding any major punishment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board has submitted that the word officer occurring in the said Rule 55 refers only to the person who has been appointed as an enquiry officer and there is nothing in the Rules to restrict the discretion of the disciplinary authority to appoint any suitable person, even a retired person to act as enquiry officer . 6. No precedent has been cited on behalf of either of the parties to help this court to resolve the aforesaid issue one way or the other on the basis of precedents. Since this appeal can be decided conveniently on other issue hence we are not inclined to decide the aforesaid issue finally in one way or the other. 7. From the facts of the case it is clear that the appellant Board had appointed Shri Devendra Prasad, Chief Engineer as conducting officer or enquiry officer when he was still serving as Chief Engineer under the Board. In order to continue to act as the enquiry officer, Devendra Prasad ought to have obtained explict permission of the Board to that effect or the Board itself should have issued necessary directions allowing him to continue with the pending enquiry. Since no such step was taken either by the enquiry officer or by the Board , it was not fair on the part of the enquiry officer to have continued with the enquiry which had been entrusted to him while he was a serving Chief Engineer of the Board. Hence on this ground - 4 - we are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned single judge that the writ petition deserves to be allowed but with a liberty to the appellant Board that it may pass fresh orders after proceeding with the disciplinary proceeding afresh. We come to the same conclusion even on the basis of submissions already noticed that the impugned resolution of the Board dated 3-7-1996 is based upon not only the findings recorded by the enquiry officer against the writ petitioner but also upon such allegations regarding financial loss to the Board caused by the writ petitioner which allegations were not part of the charges framed against the writ petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding. In view of this ground also we are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the writ court. This letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Rekha Kumari,J) Patna High Court,Patna 16th Apri, 2008 Naresh NAFR.