IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2737 of 2001 RAM KUMAR SINGH Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRIICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- 6/ 30/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who was holding the post of Junior Electrical Engineer and while assigned additional duties of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, was proceeded with departmentally on allegations of low meter reading of low tension industrial and medium power consumers. The enquiry report came to be submitted on 16.8.1997. In pursuance of the same a second show cause notice was issued when the final order of punishment dated 27.6.1998 directing withholding four increments with cumulative effect, non-consideration of promotion for five years, censure to be entered in the A.C.R for the period 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension, was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer did not return a finding of guilt. The respondents in their second show cause notice were required to set out the grounds of difference of opinion 2 with the findings in the enquiry before proceeding to impose punishment. Learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that the enquiry officer did not report a submit a report of exoneration. Punishment has been imposed after issuance of second show cause notice and consideration of the reply. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. In a departmental proceeding the findings are based on a preponderance of probabilities unlike a criminal trial where the charges are bound to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The allegations were of recording low meter reading. The enquiry officer at para-21 of the report has recorded the finding that the meter reading taken by the petitioner was on the lower side. To this Court, that clinches the issue insofar as the charges are concerned. The conclusion of the enquiry officer thereafter, upon which the petitioner seeks to draw sustenance, is misconceived and not supported by law. The enquiry officer holding that the charges had not been proved beyond all doubts is erroneous. That is not the manner in which charges have to be proved in a departmental proceeding. It has been noticed above that the charges were required to be 3 proved on a preponderance of probabilities. This Court is satisfied from the enquiry report that this requirement of law stood fulfilled. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that no grounds for difference of opinion with a report of exoneration in the departmental enquiry were mentioned in the second show cause notice. The petitioner, in his reply to the second show cause, has not raised any issue of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the departmental proceedings so as to urge any prejudice. In the entirety this Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)