This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) against the judgment and order dated 25th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 5121 of 1997.

2. The respondent-writ petitioner, an Accounts Clerk in the Board, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 4th October 1996 made by the Board dismissing the writ petitioner from service on the charge of temporary misappropriation of the Board money.

3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner on 10th January 1991. It was alleged that on 29th June 1989, the writ petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 15,214.51 from one Vijay Kumar, Junior Accounts Clerk at Balia, which the writ petitioner was supposed to enter in the Cash Book and to deposit in the Bank account of the Board. The writ petitioner did not enter the said amount in the Cash Book until 16th July 1990 and returned the same to the said Vijay Kumar on 17th July 1990. A similar charge was made in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,235/- received by the writ petitioner from the aforesaid Vijay Kumar on 31st July 1989. The said charge was replied to by the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, along with the money (cash collected from the consumer) the said Vijay Kumar was supposed to forward the cash receipt and the Daily Collection Register. As the said Vijay Kumar did not forward the Daily Collection Register, the writ petitioner could not enter the said money in the Cash Register; nor did he deposit the said money in the Bank. All along, the money was lying in the office. The petitioner had not used the said money for personal gain.

4. After holding due enquiry, the enquiry officer opined that both the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. In view of the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority served a notice to the writ petitioner to show cause why should he not be held guilty and why should he not be punished for the same. After receiving the reply from the writ petitioner, under the impugned order dated 4th October 1996, the petitioner was visited with the above referred punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, the Writ Petition.

5. The petition was contested by the Board. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition. According to the learned single Judge, the order of punishment was cryptic and the reply submitted by the writ petitioner was not taken into consideration. The learned single Judge has also relied upon the evidence of the Assistant Engineer (departmental witness no. 7). The learned single Judge has held that the Assistant Engineer did not depose that the money in question was not lying in the cash box. In view of the said evidence of the Assistant Engineer, the appellant could not have been held guilty of imputation of charge made against him. In view of the said finding recorded by the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of punishment dated 4th October 1996 and has directed the Board to pay arrears of salary to the writ petitioner from the date of his dismissal from service till 31st January 2009, the date on which the writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation. The Board has further been directed to pay arrears of terminal dues of the petitioner. The Board has, however, been allowed to charge interest on the aforesaid sums which remained undeposited for around one year. Feeling aggrieved, the Board has preferred this Appeal.

6. We have been taken through the departmental proceedings, the charge sheet, the reply to the charge sheet, the evidence, the enquiry officer’s report, the second show cause notice and the reply to the second show cause notice submitted by the writ petitioner.

7. In his reply to the charge sheet, the writ petitioner did admit the receipt of the aforesaid sums of Rs. 15,214