Letters Patent Appeal No.972 OF 2002 ******* Against the order dated 18th January, 2002, passed in CWJC no. 9368 of 1999. ******* THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-----------Appellants Versus ANAL KUMAR VERMA-------------------Respondent ******* For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Gyanand Roy ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. The respondent-writ petitioner, while serving as an Executive Engineer, was in- charge of a canal. On 11th July, 1997 villagers caused a breach to the said canal. The said breach was thereupon repaired. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued. In that several charges were leveled against the respondent-writ petitioner. Charge no.3 was that there was failure on the part of 2 the respondent-writ petitioner in supervising the canal and in particular that he did not attend to the breach immediately after the breach was caused and the same was attended by the Chief Engineer on 15th July, 1997, when too respondent-writ petitioner did not inspect the breach. In the reply to the charge sheet respondent-writ petitioner stated that he attended to the breach on 17th July, 1997, no sooner he received information in relation thereto. In the enquiry proceeding the Enquiry Officer accepted the said contention of the respondent-writ petitioner. He found that the respondent-writ petitioner from time to time inspected the breach. The Enquiry Officer opined that none of the charges leveled against the respondent-writ petitioner could be proved including charge no.3. The Disciplinary Authority differed 3 with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer in relation to Charge no.3. While so differing, the Disciplinary Authority repeated that there was failure on the part of the respondent-writ petitioner to supervise the canal inasmuch as until 15th July, 1997 he did not attend to the breach. In his representation to the letter of the Disciplinary Authority disclosing the reasons for differing from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer pertaining to Charge no.3, the respondent-writ petitioner once again pointed out that no sooner he came to learn about the breach he attended to the same. 2. Subsequently, a punishment order was passed against the respondent-writ petitioner directing censure to be entered in his service record for the relevant year and non-payment of salary except subsistence 4 allowance already paid during the period the respondent-writ petitioner remained under suspension in connection with the said Disciplinary proceedings. 3. The said order of punishment resulted in filing of the writ petition, which having been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal, the appellant-State is before us. 4. From the records of the writ petition and of the present appeal, we could not be shown any material suggesting that the respondent-writ petitioner came to know about the breach any time on or before 15th July, 1997, non-attendance whereof was the alleged failure of supervision on the part of the respondent-writ petitioner as was alleged in Charge no.3 of the charge sheet. 5. In the circumstances, the conclusion would be that nothing has come on record to suggest that the respondent-writ petitioner, 5 despite knowledge of the breach, delayed attending to it. It could not, therefore, be held that there was failure on the part of the respondent-writ petitioner in discharging his duty as a Supervisor. 6. We, accordingly, conclude the matter and refuse to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, The 02nd September, 2008. AAhmad/(NAFR).