Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent ASEB and their officers are represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.D. Das.

2. The matter pertains to a disciplinary proceeding drawn up under Regulation 10(1) of the ASEB (General Service) Regulations (for Officers), 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the ASEB Regulations”) through the Charge Memo dated 30.4.2005 (Annexure-3). Here it was alleged that while the petitioner was posted as the Dy. Accounts Officer in the Baligaon Electrical Sub Division from December 1993 to 25.9.2004, she (i) neglected duty; (ii) caused loss to Board’s property/revenue worth Rs.5,74,926/-; and (iii) committed breach of the ASEB’s Officers’ (Conduct) Regulations 1982. A statement of allegation was enclosed to the Charge Memo and the delinquent was asked to respond to the charges.

3. The charges related to, inter alia, (i) Irregular maintenance of 89 numbers of consumers ledgers without specifying the service connection of the concerned consumers, resulting in substantial loss of revenue; (ii) Preparation of Bills without reference to the actual consumption and Board’s tariff; (iii) Dropping of arrear amounts of 271 consumers; (iv) Failure to supervise the works of the Billing Clerks by the Deputy Accounts Officer during her entire tenure of 11 years, because of which bills were prepared haphazardly; (v) Presenting incorrect bills by recording average consumption for large numbers of consumers; (vi) Bills being prepared without reading the electricity meters for about 95% of the energy bills (vii) Non collection of electricity charges from the Board’s employee etc. According to the disciplinary authority the delinquent herself or in collusion with the other employees of the ASEB had caused revenue loss of at least Rs.5,74,926/- and thereby she failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion duty and also conducted herself in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the Board and thus she violated Sub-Clause (i) (ii) (iii) of Regulation 3(1) of the ASEB Regulations.

4. In her response of 16.5.2005 (Annexure-4), the delinquent denied that irregularities had occurred on account of her negligence. She referred to the role of the Billing Clerks, Jr. Engineers and other staff of the ASEB for the lapses and claimed that she has been serving the ASEB honestly and diligently and had not intentionally caused any revenue loss. The heavy workload in the Baligaon Sub-Division and lack of assisting staff was her excuse for some inadvertent mistake but she stoutly denied the charge of misappropriation. According to the delinquent, she has maintained integrity and devotion of duty during her 25 years of service and accordingly prayer was made for exoneration of the delinquent.

5. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the delinquent, Mr. R.N. Bora was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. In the domestic enquiry a written statement was submitted by the delinquent as her response to the charges but she did not adduce any evidence in defence. But 3 (three) prosecution witnesses were presented and some documentary evidences were introduced to prove the charges by the ASEB.

6. After due deliberation, it was held by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 28.10.2005 that negligence of duty under Charge No.1 is established but there is nothing to show that the delinquent manipulated the records in a criminal conspiracy. On Charge No.2 the Enquiry Officer observed that the Dy. Accounts Officer is not exclusively responsible for the loss of revenue but she has to share the responsibility with the Billing Clerks and others. Thus the 2nd Charge was also found to be substantially proved. The charge relating to want of integrity was not found proved but the related charge of failure to maintain devotion to duty and acting in a manner unbecoming of an officer of ASEB were held to have been substantially established.

7. The enquiry findings were considered by the disciplinar