Letters Patent Appeal No. 989 OF 2000 BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD& ORS.-----------(Appellant) --Versus-- BRAHMDEO KUMAR & ANR. --------------------------(Respondents) ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh For the Respondent : Mr. D. N. Pandey. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH J U D G M E N T Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, J.J. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no scope of interfering with the Judgment and Order under appeal. Before the petitioner retired, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by issuing a charge- sheet. The same was enquired into by an Enquiry Officer, who upon conclusion of the enquiry submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. In the report, the Enquiry Officer completely exonerated the petitioner of the charges, as were levelled against him. Subsequent thereto, a second show cause dated 4th July, 2 1997 was issued against the petitioner. In the said show cause, it was not stated that the Disciplinary Authority is not accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer or he is differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. On the contrary, it was stated that on due examination of findings of the Enquiry Officer, written statement and argument submitted by the proceedee, deposition of the witnesses and other relevant papers it has been established that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled against him. The said statement clearly indicates total non-application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. The said show cause proposed to levy certain punishment against the petitioner. Petitioner gave a reply thereto and thereupon retired. After his retirement, his dues were not being released in view of pendency of the said departmental proceeding. In those circumstances, petitioner filed a writ petition, which was held to be pre-mature, but a direction was issued upon the disciplinary authority to pass the final order taking into consideration all relevant materials including the show cause filed by the petitioner 3 as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order. Thereupon the punishment order dated 6th August, 1998 was passed, which was assailed by the petitioner by filing the second writ petition. That having been allowed by the order impugned, the present appeal has been preferred by the Board. The order impugned dated 6th August, 1998 is a repetition of the second show cause dated 4th July, 1997, but adds that after due consideration of finding of the Enquiry Officer, written statement of the proceedee, deposition of witnesses and evidence on record and reply to the second show cause, the punishment has been awarded. The said state of affair clearly demonstrates total non-application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. As aforesaid, the enquiry report, which summed up the evidence and other materials on record, clearly indicates that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges levelled against him. That being the situation, on the basis of the enquiry report, written statement of the petitioner and his reply to the second show cause no one 4 could pass an order, as was passed on 6th August, 1998. There is, therefore, no scope of interference with the Judgment and Order under appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Patna High Court, 30th June, 2008, S.B.P./ (Barin Ghosh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.)