TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS writ application had been preferred challenging an order dated 22nd April, 2006 passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) IN the writ application, it had been averred, inter alia, that the petitioner joined the West Bengal State Electricity Board on 1st February, 1974 as an unskilled worker Linesman and that he was promoted to the post of H.G. Senior Linesman with effect from 1st July, 2001. Subsequent thereto, on 11th June, 2003 the petitioner in the usual course of discharging his duties accompanied by his superior officer, Sri Utpal Kumar Biswas, Station Superintendent of Birpara Group Electric Supply went to a Medical Shop, namely M/s. Gupta Medical Hall situated at Birpara Market near the Bus Stand for inspection of the commercial meter bearing No.BRP/S/37 installed thereat in the name of Late Hardwan Sah for supply of electricity to the said Medical Shop, presently run by Sri Goutam Prasan Sah, the eldest son of Late Hardwan Sah and upon inspection, it transpired that the said meter was defective and the Station Superintendent, who accompanied the petitioner, informed the Medical Shop owner that the said meter would have to be replaced which was objected to by the said shop owner. The petitioner was directed by the said Station Superintendent, Sri Utpal Kumar Biswas to disconnect electricity supply to the said meter till the meter is replaced and acting on the instruction of the said Station Superintendent the said meter was disconnected by the petitioner. On the same date in the afternoon at about 3.30 p.m., the petitioner was directed by his superior officer, namely, Sri Utpal Kumar Biswas to replace the old defective meter of M/s. Gupta Medical Hall and pursuant thereto, the petitioner replaced the defective electric meter by a new electric meter bearing No.BRP/S/37 and restored electric supply to the said premises of the Medical Hall and deposited the old defective meter in the office. Surprisingly thereafter an inquiry was commenced against him on an allegation of taking bribe and by an order no.133 dated 4th September, 2003 the petitioner was placed under suspension. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was issued a Charge Sheet dated 1st January, 2004 and upon perusal of the same, the petitioner by a representation dated 1st March, 2004 prayed for supply of the copies of the documents mentioned in the said representation and the same was replied to the concerned authority by a memorandum dated 24th March, 2004 and the petitioner thereafter filed a reply to the Charge Sheet on 29th March, 2004. The inquiry commenced and the petitioner participated in the same. In connection with the said inquiry, the petitioner submitted a written argument on 21st March, 2005 and the inquiry report was ultimately communicated to the petitioner filed memorandum dated 23rd February, 2005. The petitioner replied to the said inquiry report. Subsequent thereto, the second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner filed vide memorandum dated 28th September, 2005 proposing, inter alia, a punishment towards reduction of four increments from the present pay with cumulative effect and upon consideration of the petitioner's reply to the said second show -cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum dated 22nd April, 2006 imposing a lesser punishment upon the petitioner which runs as follows : - I) Reduction of 3 (three) annual increments with cumulative effect, i.e. this deprivation shall continue till he is in the service of the Board. II) He will earn his next increment on completion of one year's satisfactory service from the date of effect of order. III) The period of suspension in respect of Sri Roy is hereby confirmed. He will not get anything beyond the subsistence allowances payable to him during the suspension period. Aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal on 9th June, 2006 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 14th September, 2006.
(3.) MR . Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to page 22 of the said inquiry report wherein it had been inter alia observed as follows : - "From the Prosecution and Defence evidence and the argument, one thing is clear (1) the line was cut which was irregular (2) the replacement of the meter was not forthwith. (3) Sri Utpal Biswas did not take any action or call for written explanation from Sri Sankar Roy indicating his grievance (4) both the charged employee tried to shift the burden on the other (5) The Prosecution Witnesses are all local people and belong to two major political parties, indicating thereby that it is not an off shoot of any political rivalry". ;