R. M. SA V ANT, J. :- This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 12-3-2001 passed by the Chairman of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the State Board) reverting the petitioner from the post of Chief Engineer to that of Superintending Engineer.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the issues raised in the petition are narrated hereinunder:-

The petitioner joined the services of the respondent No. 1 i.e. State Board in August, 1965 as Junior Engineer. The petitioner in due course was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, thereafter to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer and to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 1995 and thereafter to the post of Chief Engineer in the year 1999 and was at the relevant time working as Chief Engineer, Aurangabad Zonal Office, Aurangabad. The petitioner therefore reached the highest echelon in service. It is the case of the petitioner that all along he had a clear and unblemished service record. The petitioner was to superannuate on 31-3-2001.

The petitioner while serving as Chief Engineer at Zonal Office at Aurangabad was issued a show cause notice as regards certain alleged irregularities and misconducts committed by the petitioner during his tenure as Superintending Engineer, Ahmednagar between the period March, 1995 to 24-21999. The gravamen of the allegations in the said show cause notice are reproduced herein under:-

"A new high-tension connection was sanctioned by the Circle office Ahmednagar to M/s. Abhinav Alloys Pvt. Ltd. at F-3 MIDC Ahmednagar (Consumer No. 16201-900126-1) with contract demand of 280 KV A and connected load of 300 KW. The connection was released on 13th April, 1994. On 29th June, 1996, an inspection was carried out by the Dy. Executive Engineer (Testing) Shri V. M. Shelke and Jr. Engr. Shri S. D. Kulkarni in the presence of the Dy.E.E. and J.E. (MIDC) and the representative of the firm Shri Pitale. In this inspection, wrong grouping of cables in CTPT secondary terminal box was discovered. The same was rectified and report bearing letter No. 411 dated 10th July, 1996 was sent to the Executive Engineer as well as to you as the Superintending Engineer, Ahmednagar. In this letter a request was made to check the present consumption and make an assessment for the past. You as Superintending Engineer, Circle Office made certain queries on this report under your letter No. 411 dated 23rd August, 1996 and the same were complied with by the Executive Engineer (Testing) in his confidential letter No. 22 dated 5th October, 1996.

Due to wrong grouping of cables, the meter was showing substantially lower consumption. On receipt of the report dated 5th October, 96 from the E.E. (Testing) an office note is said to have been prepared on 20th December, 1996 by the E.E. (Office), Circle Office Ahmednagar seeking approval to issue a bill of Rs. 16,35,466/- for the period of under billing. The note was said to have been audited by Shri B. B. Wani, Accounts Officer. The note requested that responsibility may be fixed for making wrong connections. It appears you as S.E. did nothing on this note till 22nd December, 1998 (i.e. for two years, although being the Superintending Engineer for the Circle, you yourself were responsible for HT billing). The E.E. (Office), Shri Mutha and Shri Wani, A.O. retired on 31st July, 1997 and 30th April, 1998 respectively. In December, 1998, on receipt of a complaint the Dy. Director (V and S) visited your office to enquire about the revised bill. According to your admission dated 8th December, 1999, you then undertook a search to enquire as to why the assessed bill had not been issued even after a lapse of two years. Approval was thereafter given by you on 22nd December, 1998 and a bill was issued to the consumer on 30th December, 1998. The consumer, instead of paying the bill approached the Electrical Inspector, A’nagar point