NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was working as a Complaints Supervisor in one of the Stations in Bangalore of the Mysore State Electricity Board and whose services have been terminated after a departmental enquiry, impugns the order of termination. ( 2 ) THE incident or circumstances in relation to which a charge of dereliction of duty was made against him and investigated in the above departmental enquiry, occurred on the afternoon of 24th September 1968. He was then on duty at a Zonal Service Station E-3 Sub-Division. At about 12-15 shortly afternoon, he received a message that a branch of tree had fallen on a power line on Spencer Road in Civil Area. As the snapping of the wires consequent upon the fall of tree remained unattended to for more than 1 hours, a child going to school got electrocuted on account of contact with the live wire and died. Three persons were charge-sheeted on the orders of the Chief Engineer in connection therewith, one of whom is the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE particular dereliction of duty with which the petitioner had been charged was that in respect of a major breakdown and in spite of requests made he did not proceed to the spot to attend to the situation which if promptly attended to would not have resulted in such serious consequences. The petitioner was found guilty of the charge by the superintending Engineer appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the Chief engineer. On a consideration of the report, the Chief Engineer imposed the penalty of termination of service. ( 4 ) ONE of the points strongly pressed on behalf of the petitioner is that there is scarcely any dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner because having regard to certain departmental instructions issued in regard to distribution of work and the period of time he was on duty, it was not incumbent upon him to leave the station to attend to the breakdown. The second point pressed is that there are certain infirmities in the enquiry. ( 5 ) ON the first question, reliance has been placed on what is described as daily work allotment in the Zonal Stations, a copy of which is set out in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of the petition. The second point pressed is that there are certain infirmities in the enquiry. ( 5 ) ON the first question, reliance has been placed on what is described as daily work allotment in the Zonal Stations, a copy of which is set out in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of the petition. It is emphasized that whereas in the case of other shifts like those from 3 P. M. to 11 P. M. and 11 P. M. to 7 A. M. , a larger staff is shown as posted on duty at the station and is assigned the duty of not only receiving and transmitting messages to the operation and maintenance unit but also actually attending to urgent and major complaints, in respect of the shift from 7 A. M. to 3 P. M. on which the petitioner was working on the relevant date only one Supervisor is placed on duty and the work shown as allotted to him is only of recording complaints and transmitting them to the Operation and maintenance Unit. Attention is also invited to certain departmenal instructions, the relevant portions of which are copied and produced as exts. A and B annexed to the petition. The general effect of these instructions is that according to the workload and the number of persons actually present and working in the different units, the duty of attending to complaints and breakdown is sought to be equitably distributed between the various branches of the Department. It is seen that because there will be on duty at various Stations in connection with actual operation and maintenance of the services, a large number of persons working during day time, the general expectation is that immediately on receiving complaints of breakdowns or other matters, the men on the spot or close to the spot working in the Operation and Maintenance Department may be rushed for rectification of defects. Because there will be less men during the night shifts the major responsibility is placed upon the Zonal Service Stations and on the men for the time being working in the complaint section to rush to the spot immedately on receipt of complaints. Because there will be less men during the night shifts the major responsibility is placed upon the Zonal Service Stations and on the men for the time being working in the complaint section to rush to the spot immedately on receipt of complaints. They are also provided with a little more assistance by way of vehicles, linemen, etc, Even during day time when a smaller staff is posted at Service Stations, the possibility or the necessity of the complaints Supervisor having to rush immediately is not over-looked. In fact, one of the instructions issued is that whereas he need not leave the Station immediately to attend to small matters like fuse failure, at the time of major breakdowns the Supervisor should arrange for receiving the complaints and then leave the Station. The idea clearly is that whereas the public has to have benefit of somebody always available to receive complaints, the attention necessary for breakdowns is not to be relaxed. ( 6 ) IN the course of the enquiry it is found that the petitioner actually admitted that it was possible for him to proceed to the spot within ten minutes and rectify it and take steps to prevent further serious consequences flowing from the snapping of wires. The report also says that there was a vehicle available to him. The suggestion that there was nobody who could be put in charge of receiving complaints is also without support because there is the statement of the petitioner showing that one samad came unexpectedly, with whom he sent a chit containing the information regarding the complaint. There appear to have been some others who could have been put in charge. The petitioner is a technical man and was quite competent to1 proceed to the spot to take effective steps for preventing the snapping of wires from yielding dangerous consequences. ( 7 ) HENCE both from the impression gathered from the general instructions for distribution of work as well as from the factual situation as admitted by the petitioner himself, we are unable to accept the suggestion that it was no part of his duty to have left the Station to attend to the breakdown. Indeed the general responsibility of attending to breakdowns which are fraught with danger to the public rests squarely upon the board and every one of its executives working on the spot. Indeed the general responsibility of attending to breakdowns which are fraught with danger to the public rests squarely upon the board and every one of its executives working on the spot. To say or to admit that the Complaints Supervisor's duty is at an end when he transmits the complaints to the Operation and Maintenance Unit is to make a proposition which is fraught with grave danger to public saftey. ( 8 ) WE have no hesitation in agreeing with the argument on behalf of the respondents that the failure on the part of the petitioner to proceed to the place of breakdown was, in the circumstances, a clear dereliction of duty. ( 9 ) REGARDING the enquiry, the statement of facts and events in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the affidavit in support of the petition gives the impression that what was held was more or less a preliminary investigation, that no regular enquiry was held in the presence of the petitioner and that he has been found guilty on the basis of evidence recorded behind his back. We find, however, from the original papers of enquiry placed before us that the regular enquiry was held on the 16th and 17th of December 1968 and that the petitioner was present throughout the enquiry. The Enquiry officer has also taken precaution of taking the signature of every one present on every page of the record of enquiry. The petitioner has signed on every page. He has in the course of the enquiry put questions to cross-examine one of the witnesses and has refrained from crossexamining others. He has been given the opportunity of explaining by the Enquiry Officer himself putting certain questions to elicit information. We do not think, therefore, that the picture sought to be presented at paras 16 and 17 of the affidavit can at all be accepted. ( 10 ) THE only slender basis for the case appears to be that though the enquiry by the Superintending Engineer started on the 16th of December 1968 and he was appointed Enquiry Officer on or about the 11th of december, he had on a prior occasion, on or about the 7th, issued some communication to the petitioner in relation to the enquiry proposed. But that is not a vitiating circumstance at all because the substance of the matter is contained in the record of the departmental enquiry held actually in the presence of the petitioner on the 16th and 17th of Dec. 1968. ( 11 ) SO far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, it is a matter within the discretion of the disciplinary authority and we cannot be asked to substitute our opinion therefor even if it should be possible to entertain a different view. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .