Full Judgment
S.N. Mishra, J.
1. Heard learned counselfor the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board. Inthis writ application, the petitioner hasprayed for quashing of the order dated20.11.1998, whereby, he has been dismissedfrom the service by the respondent BiharState Electricity Board and also for quashingof the order dated 15.6.1999, whereby, therespondent-Chairman. Bihar State ElectricityBoard, has dismissed the appeal, filed by thepetitioner and thereby, confirmed the order ofdismissal, passed by the respondentauthority. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for negligence of his duties and misappropriation of the Board's amount. In the departmental proceeding, both oral as well as documentary evidence were adduced and the respondent enquiry officer by a reasoned order found the petitioner not guilty and, accordingly, submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after issuing show cause notice, passed the order of dismissal, ignoring the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ application, which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2084 of 1996 (R). The order of dismissal was set aside by order dated 14.4.1998, on the ground that no reason has been assigned as to why the disciplinary authority differed from the findings, recorded by the enquiry officer and remitted the case back for passing a fresh order, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the remand order, the impugned order has been passed. Again the respondent disciplinary authority has passed the order of dismissal. From mere perusal of the order, it appears that no reason has been assigned as to why the enquiry report is not accepted and again the order of dismissal was passed, without assigning any reason. The appellate authority has also not considered the import of the remand order and held the petitioner guilty and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and thereby, confirmed the order of the respondent disciplinary authority, after some modification in the order impugned. It is well established principle of law by now that the disciplinary authority may not accept the report of the enquiry officer but in that event, the reason has to be assigned as to why the report is not being accepted. In the instant case, from mere perusal of the order under challenge it appears that no reason has been assigned as to why the report is not acceptable to the disciplinary authority, in-spite of the specific direction, issued earlier by this Court, while disposing of the aforesaid writ application. In this case, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of, the petitioner, wherein, inter alia, it is stated that along with the petitioner, two other Account Officers were also proceeded against and out of the aforesaid two Accounts Officers, one is already dead and the other was not found guilty by the enquiry officer. However, thedisciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal, which was challenged before thisCourt. Ultimately, the order of dismissal wasquashed and pursuant thereto, the said Accounts Officer was reinstated on the post. Bethat as it may, in the case, the orders passedby the respondent disciplinary authority aswell as the appellate authority can not standin the eye of law for the reasons, stated above.Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.1998 aswell as 15.6.1999, contained in Annexure-1and I/A to this writ application, are herebyquashed and the matter is remitted back tothe respondent authority to pass a freshorder, in accordance with law, and in the lightof the observations, made hereinabove. Thisdisposes of this writ application. Since thecase is an old one, the respondent authoritywill take a final decision and pass a freshorder within six weeks from the date ofreceipt/production of a copy of this order.
2. Application disposed of.