CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3837 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. DAYA NATH SINGH SON OF LATE RAMAYAN SINGH RESIDENT OF DAYA NIWAS MOHANPUR, PUNAI CHAK, PATNA-23.----------------------------------------PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, INCHARGE (ENGINEERING ESTABLISHMENT) BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. -------------- RESPONDENTS For The Petitioner : Mr.Nitesh Kumar Nirala,Advocate. For The Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar verma, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Chief Engineer cum General Manager, Tirhut Area, Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur. He has filed this writ application assailing the resolution of the Board dated 22.6.1996, Annexure- 1,whereunder after conduction of enquiry proceeding he has been punished and his 10% pension forfeited with further direction that he shall not be paid more than subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension. He has also been censured for the year 1995- 2 1996. Punishment order has been passed in the light of the resolution of the Board dated 22.8.1995 and 23.9.1995, Annexures 2 and 3, whereunder petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him pursuant to chgargesheet appended with resolution dated 23.9.1995, Annexure-3. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Enquiry Officer submitted report holding the petitioner guilty which was considered by the Board under resolution dated 22.6.1996, Annexure-1 and the punishment order was passed against the petitioner. Before the Board resolved to punish the petitioner, it is submitted that petitioner was not served with the copy of the enquiry report enabling him opportunity to rebut the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Board without giving the petitioner opportunity to rebut the same, the punishment order suffers from the vice of violation of natural justice and is arbitrary. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS Versus B. KARUNAKAR AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 1993(4) SCC 727, paragraph-31. 4. The authorities of the Board have filed counter affidavit, in paragraph-8 whereof there is candid admission of the fact that the copy of the enquiry report was not served on 3 the petitioner earlier calling upon him to show-cause as to why the finding of guilt recorded in the report be not accepted. While accepting the factum of non service of the enquiry report, counter affidavit states that on account of non service of the counter affidavit, petitioner has not been prejudiced and in such view of the matter the impugned order, although passed without serving the enquiry report on the petitioner should not be interfered with by this Court. 5. I regret not to accept the submission of the counsel for the Board. Enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of causing financial loss to the Board was not served on the petitioner but punishment order was passed relying on such finding recorded in the report itself. Petitioner having not been served with the enquiry report had no opportunity to rebut the findings recorded in the report and to show how his case has been prejudiced. Had the Board given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner may have shown to the disciplinary authority that the findings recorded in the enquiry report is not reliable as he had taken necessary administrative steps which was expected of the General Manager to ensure that the consumers of the area are not indulging in power theft. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid submission, only in appreciation of the fact that the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner, I set aside the impugned resolution of the 4 Board dated 22.6.1996, Annexure-1, and direct the petitioner to file his second show-cause reply as he has already received the enquiry report through counter affidavit, as early as possible in any case within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereafter the competent authority of the Board shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. This writ application, is accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 04th Nov. 2010. NAFR/Ibrar ( V.N. Sinha, J.)