IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19272 of 2010 RAMA KANT PD.CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE HARINANDAN PD. CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF SOUTH OF LAW COLLEGE, GANNIPUR, MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, DARBHANGA :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. OFFICER-ON-SPECIAL DUTY (ADMN.) GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (ESTT.), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUZAFFARPUR :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.C.Mitra, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advocate. ========= 2. 25.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the Officer on Special Duty (Administration), Annexure-9, whereunder his request to modify the punishment order dated 16.03.2000, Annexure-2 in the light of the resolution of the Board dated 02.06.1999, Annexure-5 has been rejected holding that vide punishment no. 4 of the resolution dated 16.3.2000, Annexure-2 petitioner - 2 - has been asked not to be paid anything beyond the subsistence allowance during the suspension period and thereby he is not to earn any increment during the suspension period. Aforesaid order has been passed in the light of the discretion granted in paragraph-2 of the standing order dated 2.6.1999, Annexure-5 to the disciplinary authority not to grant increment during the suspension period. 3. As the impugned order dated 23.08.2010, Annexure-9 has been passed with reference to the provisions contained in paragraph 2 of the standing order dated 2.6.1999, Annexure-5, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order dated 23.08.2010, Annexure-9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)