IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.88 of 2011 ====================================================== Ganga Kumar Shrivastava, Son of Late Uma Charan Prasad, Resident of Mohalla – Shivpuram, Lane No. 1/F, Vijay Nagar, Bailey Road, Patna – 14, the then Chief Engineer (Planning), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidhyut Bhawan, Patna, 3. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhyut Bhawan, Patna, 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board (General Administration Department), Vidhyut Bhawan, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. M.K. Singh, GP 12. For the BSEB : Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5. 16.05.2011. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Ganga Kumar Shrivastava, a retired employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board, to challenge the Notice dated 26th October 2010 issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board. A disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. A charge sheet has been issued and an Enquiry Officer has Patna High Court CWJC No.88 of 2011 (5) dt.16-05-2011 2 / 3 2 been appointed. In the impugned notice dated 26th October 2010 the petitioner has been called upon to submit a reply to the charge sheet to the Enquiry Officer. Learned Advocate Mr Dinu Kumar has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner could not have been called upon to submit reply to the charge sheet to the Enquiry Officer. Such reply can be filed before the disciplinary authority alone. The matter had come up before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge had, by his order dated 10th January 2011, expressed a prima facie view, “It is open to the employer to proceed in accordance with a procedure which is fair and just and does not violate the principles of natural justice”. However, the matter has been referred to the Division Bench. Thus, the matter has been notified before us. As recorded hereinabove, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet as early as on 26th October 2010 and was called upon to submit his reply to the charge sheet within fifteen days therefrom. We are informed at the Bar that till today the petitioner has not filed his reply to the charge sheet and is before us for resolution of the issue raised in the present petition. We are of the opinion that the matter does not require attention at this stage of the disciplinary proceeding. In the event, at the end of the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner is found guilty and is visited with a penalty, in challenge to such order of penalty, the petitioner may raise all available grounds including the Patna High Court CWJC No.88 of 2011 (5) dt.16-05-2011 3 / 3 3 Dilip. one raised in the present petition. Subject to the above observation, without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised in the present petition, the petition is disposed of. ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )