Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the Resolution No. 1720 dated 15.11.2017 issued by the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SBPDCL’), as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition and also the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, communicated vide letter No.2366 dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Electrical Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, a Government undertaking, and joined on such post on 16.03.2009. With the span of time, the Bihar State Electricity Board was dissolved and five companies were formed in which the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited was the main/controlling company and the services of the petitioner were placed under the SBPDCL. The petitioner was ordered to be regularized after the work of Electrical Executive Engineer, Gaya vide order dated 15.04.2013. In the year 2014, he was transferred to Bhabua as Electrical Executive Engineer then to Munger Electric Executive Engineer, Supply Division as I/c on 11.05.2015. He further submits that during his posting as Electrical Executive Engineer, Munger, the Special Task Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘the STF’) of the SBPDCL inspected the premises of one Yadunandan Prasad Sah and found consumption of electricity beyond the sanctioned load on a particular day i.e. 21.10.2015 as 27.42 HP as against the sanctioned load of 10 HP. Counsel further submits that on 06.04.2016, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that he has not taken cognizance relating to violation of Clause 7.1 (b) of the Bihar Electric Supply Code 2007 with a view to causing revenue loss to the company and also with a view to provide illegal benefit to the consumer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed its reply to the said show cause, but even then General Manager (H.R./Administration) of the SBPDCL was not satisfied and issued a charge memo vide Resolution No.1144 dated 05.08.2016 about initiation of departmental proceeding with which Prapatra- Ka had been attached. The petitioner contested the said charge memo and participated in the enquiry. During the enquiry proceeding which was conducted by the Chief Engineer, the Enquiry Officer found nothing adverse against the petitioner and concluded his enquiry that the allegation had been made only on suspicion, therefore, not proved. Subsequently, differing from the enquiry report, vide Resolution No. 964 dated 04.07.2017, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (as contained in Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted a reply to the second show cause notice on 22.07.2017 (as contained in Annexure -P10 to the writ petition), but the same has not been considered at all and the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of censor. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of punishment dated 15.11.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, but his appeal was rejected vide order dated 20.07.2018 in which none of the points raised by the petitioner have been considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer who is the Chief Engineer and a technical person holding a high post has well considered every point and found the charge not proved, but this aspect has not been considered by the disciplinary authority at all. He further submits that it has not been stated in the second show cause what action has been proposed to be taken by the disciplinary authority and as such, the second show cause is in vi