IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2143 of 2010 1. BIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA S/O LATE KAPILDEO PRASAD MOHALLA -MOHAN NAGAR,P.S.CHAPRA TOWN,P.O.CHAPRA,DISTT-SARAN ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT (DISMISSED)ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION BANIYAPUR,SARAN,AT PRESENT FLAT NO.104,JAI SREE ENCLAVE SOUTH MANDIRI NEAR KATHPUL,PATNA ,BIHAR Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ,PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD,PATNA,BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY,BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD, PATNA,BIHAR 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner :M/S Ajit Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Jibeshwar Labh, Dr. Champa Kumari & Baidyanath Prasad, Advocates For the Respondents :Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate 03/ 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner, who earlier served the Board as Accounts Assistant-cum- Cashier, was dismissed from the service of the Board under orders dated 27.5.2000, Annexure-2 on the ground that he defalcated the revenue receipts collected by him. He has filed this writ application to recall the dismissal order dated 27.5.2000, Annexure-2, as for the same charge of defalcation, he was also prosecuted and was acquitted under judgment dated 1.2.2001 contained in Annexure-4. In this connection, he earlier filed a writ application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2818 of 2009, which was permitted to be withdrawn under orders dated 3.3.2009, whereafter the authorities of the 2 Board were requested by the petitioner to reconsider the dismissal order in view of the finding of acquittal recorded under judgment dated 1.2.2001, vide representation dated 25.3.2009, Annexure-6 and subsequent representations dated 15.7.2009, 19.8.2009 and 12.10.2009. Aforesaid representations have been rejected by the Board under orders dated 12.1.2010. By filing I.A. No. 1658 of 2010, request of the petitioner is to set aside the order dated 12.1.2010, Annexure-7 with further direction to the Board to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order dealing with the request contained in representation dated 25.3.2009, Annexure-6 and subsequent representations dated 15.7.2009, 19.8.2009 and 12.10.2009, as the Board has not indicated any reason for rejecting the representations to recall the order of dismissal in the light of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. 3. Counsel for the Board has opposed the aforesaid prayer. He states that order of the Board contained in letter dated 12.1.2010, Annexure-7 may not be with reasons, but fact remains that the acquittal of the petitioner recorded under judgment dated 1.2.2001, Annexure-4 was taken into account by the competent authority of the Board when his appeal was considered under order, bearing letter no. 1737 dated 20.8.2002 and from the penultimate paragraph of the said order, it is 3 evident that judgment pronounced by the Judicial Magistrate, Saran dated 1.2.2001 was not relied upon to recall the dismissal order as the said judgment was passed on technical grounds for failure of the Board to produce evidence in support of the charge of defalcation. 4. The acquittal of the petitioner has been recorded for the failure of the Board to support the charge of defalcation, in the circumstances, could not have been looked into by the authorities of the Board to recall the order of dismissal dated 27.5.2000, Annexure-2, which is based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and in the circumstances, I am also not inclined to interfere in the matter to set aside the order dated 12.1.2010, Annexure-7, whereunder representations filed by the petitioner for recall of the dismissal order has been rejected. The application is dismissed. 5. When this order was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to assail the very dismissal order dated 27.5.2000, Annexure-2 on the ground that the said order was recorded by the Disciplinary Authority without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to refute the charge of defalcation, as the documents called for by him in the proceeding were not furnished to him. 6. Aforesaid submission, petitioner should 4 have raised within a reasonable time of the service of dismissal order dated 27.5.2000, Annexure-2 on him and in any case when the earlier writ application was permitted to be withdrawn under orders dated 3.3.2009. In the circumstance, I am not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the dismissal order dated 27.5.2000, Annexure-2 at this belated stage on the ground of laches. AFR Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)