IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.251 of 2011 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through its Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Chief Engineer (Planning), Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna …….. Respondents …… Appellants Versus RAGHUNATH SINGH , Son of Late Kishori Singh Resident of Mohalla Saket PUri Sourth of Bazar Samiti, P.O. Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Bahadurpur, District Patna ….. Petitioner ….. Respondent ----------- For the Appellants : M/s Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate A.A.G. I Piyus Lal, Advocate For the Respondent: M/s Vindhyakeshari Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate ------- 4 10.05.2011 Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. The order under appeal dated 10.5.2010 shows that the writ petition filed by the respondent for challenging a decision of the disciplinary authority not to pay anything beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension has been disposed of with a direction to the appellant Board to release the arrears 2 of salary of the writ petitioner for the period of suspension in view of the fact that he was not punished and he was exonerated of the charges. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that although the inquiry report found the charges not established and the same was accepted by the disciplinary authority resulting into exoneration of the writ petitioner from the charges, the impugned order whereby it was decided not to pay anything beyond subsistence allowance would show that the disciplinary authority was of the view that there was failure of duty on the part of the proceedee although the charges could not be proved. According to the submission, the facts noticed above cannot amount to full exoneration of the proceedee when it has been held by the disciplinary authority that there was failure of duty on the part of the proceedee. In our considered view, once the inquiry report held that the charges could not be proved and that was accepted by the disciplinary authority, it is not possible to presume that the proceedee was not fully exonerated of the charges. Only if the inquiry 3 report had found the proceedee guilty of one or other charges, even in part, and on considering the representation or explanation of the proceedee the authorities would have decided to ignore the proved charges and instead of imposing even the lightest of the punishment , i.e., censure, decided only to warn the proceedee, it could have been argued that the proceedee was not fully exonerated of the charges. But that is not the case at hand. In that view of the matter we do not find good reasons to accept the aforesaid submission on behalf of the appellants. The second issue raised on behalf of the appellants is that the writ petition was preferred in the year 2010, whereas the impugned order contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition was passed in 2006. It is submitted that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on ground of delay and laches. On this issue also we are not in agreement because delay is not fatal for a writ proceeding in all cases. No third party interest can be noticed in the present case and wrong done to an employee who is still in service can be undone because of apparent illegality, when the 4 relationship of master and servant is still existing. In the facts of the case we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)