S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st June, 1996 passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board (for short -Board), whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was discharged from the services of the Board, some of the allegations having been proved against him. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11th April, 1998, whereby and whereunder, the Board rejected the appeal as was preferred by the petitioner against the order of discharge.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Regional Officer of the Board at Dhanbad, vide his letter No. 1150, dated 24th May, 1995 recommended the Chairman of the Board, Patna to take certain disciplinary action against him on the ground that the petitioner threatened him due to certain minor dispute and for certain action which is unbecoming on the part of a Board employee. The petitioner was asked to submit a show cause by the Member Secretary of the Board, Patna vide letter No. 689 dated 21st June, 1995. It is alleged that though three weeks' time were given to petitioner to submit show cause reply, but before expiry of such period of submission of show cause reply, the petitioner was suspended by the Member, Secretary of the Board, Patna, vide Notification No, 23, dated 26th June, 1995. A charge sheet was communicated vide Notification No. 35, dated 22nd August, 1995 and one Shri Akhileshwar Singh, Deputy Advisor of the Board was appointed as Enquiry Officer. One Shri Viveka Nand Singh, Senior Legal Advisor was appointed to assist the Enquiry Officer. The main charge against the petitioner was that on 24th May, 1995, he entered the Chambers of the Regional Officer, Dhanbad and unnecessarily pressurized him to issue his certificate of experience and thrown the concerned register on the table of the officer and stated that the Officer is to issue experience certificate as he wants. At that point of time, the petitioner also shown his anger and told him 'MAI AAPKO BATA DUNGA, AAP KSHETRIYA PADADHIKARI BAN GAI HAI, BAHUT POWER MIL GAYA HAI' The aforesaid action is against the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 and unbecoming of a Board's servant. The Enquiry Officer, on the next date to the charge sheet, vide letter No. 937, dated 23rd August, 1995 reiterating and communicating the charge arid asked the petitioner whether he Intended to appear for hearing and submit show cause reply or not. The petitioner, on appearance, submitted show cause reply on 28th August, 1995, specifically denied the allegations. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer on completion of enquiry submitted his report on 26th October, 1955. The Chairman of the Board. Patna thereafter issued letter dated 31st January, 1996 and asked the petitioner as to why he be not punished, the charge against him having been proved. It followed by the order of punishment of discharge dated 1st June, 1996 issued by the Chairman of the Board, Patna. From the letter No. 937, dated 23rd August, 1995 of the Enquiry Officer, there appears to be only one charge framed against the petitioner, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Rests are the citation of evidence. However, from the impugned order of punishment dated 1st June, 1996 (Annexure -8), it appears that 8 (eight) charges were taken into consideration by the Chairman of the Board, Patna and the petitioner was punished on the ground that the Charge Nos. 1, 2 and 8 stood proved against him. The counsel for the Respondent Board could not explain as to how eight charges were taken into consideration if one charge was referred to the Enquiry Officer for enquiry.
(3.) IT appears that the petitioner challenged the order of punishment before this Court in CWJC No. 6025 of 1995. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10th pecember, 1997 with observations that the petitioner should file an appeal within three weeks and the Board was directed to consider the appeal and to dispose of the same on merit within four months. The petitioner, thereafter, moved before the Division Bench in LPA No. 95 of 1998 on the ground that the appeal was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Division Bench on 9th March, 1998 allowed the petitioner to move before the learned Single Judge and to point out that there was no provision of appeal or revision. However, the review application being Civil Review No. 103 of 1998 preferred by the petitioner was not entertained and dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24th April, 1998. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner had to prefer appeal before the Board at Patna but the Board vide its meeting held on 11th April, 1998 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of discharge communicated, vide letter dated 22nd April, 1998 (Annexure -13).;