TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned second show -cause notice dated 17.02.2010 issued by the respondent no.3.
(2.) IN the writ application it has been averred, inter alia, that the petitioner was employed under the respondent no.1 since 1978 and in the midst of such service tenure, he was promoted to the post of Junior Manager (F) and (A), Midnapore Transmission Project, (Field Zone - II). To overcome a daily journey of about 30 kms for the purpose of attending office at Tamluk, the petitioner starting residing at a rented house in the town of Tamluk on and from the month of January, 2006 and his other family members were residing in the paternal house at village Kakdighi, Mecheda and in the said paternal house the petitioner, being an employee of the respondent no.1, was provided a staff service connection for electricity marked as Service Connection No.D -577, the Consumer No.A -07198 and there was also a commercial service connection being No.C -200 and Consumer No.A -07199 in the name of the petitioner 's father, namely, Satish Chandra Samanta, since deceased. On 23rd November, 2008 an inspection was conducted by the respondent no.5 and a complaint alleging pilferage was lodged against the petitioner on 23rd November, 2008 itself before the Officer -in -charge, Kolaghat Police Station and a criminal case being Kolaghat P.S. Case No.258/2008 under section 135 (1) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2003) was initiated and the same is still pending. Upon detection of theft of electricity, a provisional assessment bill to the tune of Rs.3,34,431/ - was raised. The said provisional assessment was challenged by the petitioner through an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No.30036 (W) of 2008 and that subsequent thereto challenging the delay towards issuance of the final assessment order, the petitioner preferred a further application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No. 5230 (W) of 2009 and that by an order dated 24.03.2009 both the said writ applications were disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal.
(3.) IN the midst thereof by a memorandum dated 31st December, 2008 the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect and that subsequent thereto a disciplinary proceeding was initiated through issuance of a charge sheet dated 7th January, 2009 and in reply to the said charge sheet the petitioner contended inter alia that as the charges in the criminal proceeding are identical to the charges in the departmental proceeding, the latter is required to be stayed but such contention of the petitioner was not accepted by the authorities and a Memorandum dated 14thFebruary, 2009 was issued by the respondent no.3 appointing an Inquiry Officer and directing the petitioner to participate in the said inquiry and pursuant thereto, the petitioner duly participated in the said inquiry and cross -examined the witnesses deposing on behalf of the respondent no.1 but the said petitioner, however, did not produce any witness to adduce evidence for and on his behalf. Upon recording the evidence as tendered by the witnesses and upon considering the materials on record, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 4th February, 2009 observing inter alia that the charges under regulations 38, 59, 61(b) and 61(e) of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees ' Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations) stand proved against the petitioner.;