ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the office order No. 2613 dated 12.6.1999 issued by the Joint Secretary. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (BSEB for short) whereby and whereunder he has been Indicted major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect with further order that he will not receive any salary for the period of suspension, except subsistence allowance, nor increment for the period of suspension though the period of suspension will be counted for retrial benefits.
2. The writ petition was filed on 4.4.2000 before the Patna High Court after service of the copy on the counsel for BSEB. It was transferred before this Court by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court under Section 89 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act. 2000 after notice to the parties. No counter- affidavit has been filed by BSEB.
3. As the case can be disposed of on short point on the basis of the enclosures attached to the writ petition, it is not necessary to record all the facts, claim and counter claim, except the relevant one.
4. The petitioner while functioning as forman. a criminal case was lodged against him. In pursuance of Director of Personnel’s letter No. 167 dated 2.4.1994. the petitioner was suspended by General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Barauni Thermal Power Station vide office order No. 247 dated 27.4.1994. He was proceeded departmentally vide office order No. 43 dated 30.1.1995 for committing moral turpitude by involving in a murder case which was stated to be gross misconduct as per Board’s Certified Standing Orders. The following charges were levelled against the petitioner:–
Charge-sheet
“That on written FIR, lodged by Sri Krishna Kumar Pathak, Village & P.O. Gaura, Via-Teghra, Distt-Bengusarai (father of his daughter-in-law) on 4.5.1993 that he alongwith his family members committed murder of his daughter-in-law in the night of 3.5.1993 and he was accused under Section 498-A/304-B/34, IPC vide P.S. Case No. 188/93.
He was arrested and in Judicial (police custody) from 17.5.1993 to 16.10.1993 and has been released on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two surities of the like amount by the Hon’ble High Court, Patna.
The above action amounts to gross misconduct under Clause 29 (B) (P) of Board’s certified standing orders read with Clause 5 of Board’s standing order No. 630 dated 11.9.1981.”
5. According to petitioner, the departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of rules of natural justice without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. However, it is not necessary to decide the aforesaid issue for the present.
6. The enquiry officer by his report contained in letter No. 135 dated 23.8.1995 held that the petitioner was hiding the fact and approachensive about truth and held that a case has already been instituted against him and pending before the Court of Begusarai. After such report, the Joint Secretary purported to have been given a second show cause by order dated 17.3.1999 and inflicted the major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect vide order No. 2631 dated 12.6.1999.
7. The petitioner has enclosed a copy of the judgment dated 14.6.1999 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 548/93 wherein for the charges under Section 304-B of the IPC for committing murder of Vidya Devi, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, the petitioner and other accused were held not guilty and acquitted for their charges.
8. From the facts as taken from the enclosures, it will be evident that the charge of committing murder of daughter-in-law has not been held to be proved by the enquiry officer, nor it was whether his jurisdiction to
decide the issue. The petitioner was arrested, taken in judicial custody and released on bail as mentioned in the charge-sheet is a question of fact and does not amount to misconduct till the charge of committing murder is held to be proved.
9. The enquiry officer, as stated above has not held the petitioner guilty of the purported charges mentioned in the charge-sheet and merely stated that the petitioner was not revealing all the facts. If during the pendency of the criminal case for same set of allegation petitioner did not choose to reveal all the facts, it cannot be held to be misconduct, nor the respondents can punish the petitioner on that ground, being not a charge shown in the charge-sheet. In any case, the petitioner having acquitted of charge for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC by the competent Court of law, the authorities should not have punished the petitioner but should have awaited the decision of the competent Court of law.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of punishment dated 12.6.1999 being illegal, is set aside. The competent authorities of BSEB are directed to pay the petitioner the full salary of the period of suspension after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations.