TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at stage.
(2.) ON 18 -12 -1998 while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Electrical Engineer (System Operation), South Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, he was served with the letter of the same date (Annexure 2) wherein he was asked to show cause as to why appropriate departmental action be not initiated against him if he was unable to satisfactorily explain the charge that was levelled against him. Upon perusal of Annexure 2, the charge appears to be in relation to non -furnishing of a report to the department of revenue of the Board relating to electrical connection given to a consumer, namely, Laxman Mahto being SBR Connection (Domestic) No. 193. This connection is said to have been given on 13 -10 -1986. Upon receipt of the aforementioned notice to show cause, the petitioner justifiably reacted and expressed his astonishment through his reply dated 30 -1 -1999 in which he specifically stated that the connection was given on 13 -10 -1986 when he was not even posted there. The matter thereafter appears to have remained dormant. Thereafter and suddenly on 26 -2 -2001, an order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. The learned counsels appearing for the respective Boards have not been able to dispute the contention of the writ petitioner that this order of punishment was passed without considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner. In fact, in Paragraph 8 (iii), the petitioner stated thus : "That it is stated that the petitioner filed his reply vide letter No. 13 dated 30 -1 -1999 stating therein that during the relevant period in 1986, the petitioner was not even posted in the concerned electrical section from which electric connection was given to the consumer Laxman Mahto on 13 -10 -1986 and therefore, he was not in any way connected with the allegation."
(3.) THE reply to Paragraph 8(iii) is to be found in Paragraph 15 which reads as follows "That with regards to the fact mentioned in paragraph -8 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the writ application which lead to inflicting of minor punishment on the petitioner, it is humbly stated and submitted that a detailed statement has been made on behalf of the respondents in the Paragraph -4 of the instant counter -affidavit. It is however additionally submitted that before passing the impugned order of punishment the petitioner has been given full opportunity and it cannot be said that the rule of natural justice has not been followed." ;