ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed off at this stage. 2. On 18.12.1998 while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Electrical Engineer (System Operation), South Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, he was served with the letter of the same date (Annexure 2) wherein he was asked to show cause as to why appropriate departmental action be not Initiated against him if he was unable to satisfactorily explain the charge that was levelled against him. Upon perusal of Annexure 2, the charge appears to be in relation to non-furnishing of a report to the department of revenue of the Board relating to electrical connection given to a consumer, namely, Laxman Mahto being SBR Connection (Domestic) No. 193. This connection is said to have been given on 13.10.1986. 3. Upon receipt of the aforementioned notice to show cause, the petitioner justifiably reacted and expressed his astonishment through his reply dated 30.1.1999 in which he specifically stated that the connection was given on 13.10.1986 when he was not even posted there. The matter thereafter appears to have remained dormant. Thereafter and suddenly on 26.2.2001, an order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. The learned counsels appearing for the respective Boards have not been able to dispute the contention of the writ petitioner that this order of punishment was passed without considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner. In fact, in paragraph 8(iii), the petitioner stated thus : "That it is stated that the petitioner filed his reply vide letter No. 13 dated 30.1.1999 stating therein that during the relevant period in 1986, the petitioner was not even posted in the concerned electrical section from which electric connection was given to the consumer Laxman Prasad Mahto on 13.10.1986 and, therefore, he was not in any way connected with the allegation." The reply to paragraph .8(iii) is to be found in paragraph 15 which reads as follows : "That with regards to the fact mentioned in paragraph 8(i), (ii) and (iii) of the writ application which lead to Inflicting of minor punishments on the petitioner, it is humbly stated and submitted that a detailed statement has been made on behalf of the respondents in the paragraph 4 of the instant counter affidavit. It is however additionally submitted that before passing the impugned order of punishment the petitioner has been given full opportunity and it cannot be said that the rule of natural justice has not been followed." 4. It appears that the words "Paragraph 4" appearing in the aforementioned paragraph is an Inadvertent typographical error and the main explanation is really to be found in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, but reading the contents therein, it would appear that all that the respondents have said is that since fifteen days time was given in the notice/memo dated 18.12.1998, therefore it should be deemed that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. In the same paragraph, it has further been stated that the petitioner submitted his reply on 30.1.1999 and that : "but most surprisingly he gave a vague reply stating that the connection was given in the year 1986 when he was not posted thus he was not responsible. The petitioner did not explain as to why in his tenure also the average billing against the said connection holder continued and why for that irregularity he should not be held responsible. It is humbly stated and submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner was examined and considered on merit on the basis of record and documents available in the Boards original records as well as in the light of the replies of other seven Junior Electrical Engineers submitted in the same matter after the show cause/memos issued them on the basis of irregularities pointed out in the special audit report. After considering the entire materials, the reply/defence statement submitted by the petitioner as well as other similarly situated Junior Engineers it was found that the aforesaid persons including the petitioner has been responsible for the irregularity as pointed out in the audit report thus as per the decision of the competent authority of the Board following punishment of all concerned persons including the petitioner has been awarded : (a)Censure; (b)Stoppage of three increments with non-cumulative effect; (c) To be debarred from promotion for two years from due date of promotion." 5. Thus upon perusal of the aforementioned statements made in the counter affidavit quoted above, it is evident that the respondents have merely brushed aside the defence of the petitioner which he raised to the effect that he was not even posted in the year 1996 only by saying that it was a vague reply. In this counter affidavit, a fresh charge appears to have been levelled against the petitioner and the grievance against him is that "he did not explain as to why in his tenure also the average billing against the said connection holder continued and why for that irregularity he should not be held responsible". 6. In other words the defence of the petitioner to the effect that he was not even posted at the relevant time was not even answered and upon mere consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and the record and the documents available with the Board and upon consideration/in the light of the replies of other Junior Engineers it was found that the petitioner was responsible for the irregularity and, accordingly, punishment was imposed. 7. In appeal/representation to the Board, the petitioner again reiterated that the order had been passed in relation to a date when he was not even posted at the relevant place. Thereafter, the second impugned order was passed on 8.11.2000 vide Annexure 6, whereby and when under, the penalties were reduced in the following manner : (a)Censure; (b) Withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect; and (c) Withholding of promotion for one year from the date it became due. 8. It is . basically against the aforementioned two orders that the petitioner feels aggrieved and that top when the successor Board, namely, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, according to the petitioner, have not shown any interest towards conferring the status of a promotee upon him. 9. Upon consideration of the factuals involved in this case, a feature which highlights in favour of the petitioner is that there has been absolutely no consideration on a very specific plea and the assertion made by him to the effect that he should not be saddled with any responsibility in relation to giving of an electrical connection in the year 1986 because he was not even posted there. The other feature that enures to the benefit of the petitioner is the proportionality of the punishment imposed. The other feature that enures to the benefit of the petitioner is the proportionality of the punishment imposed. The Board has not been able to dispute or dispel the connection in relation to the placement of the petitioner in the year 1986 at the relevant place and in spite of query made in this regard, the only reply that they give is in the context of what has been stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. Clearly therefore, there is no answer forthcoming and to that extent therefore, it must be deemed, that in fact there is no answer to such a specific plea which the petitioner raised not only in the year 1986 but also repeated in his appeal filed on 7.5.2001. This Court therefore, does not understand what, in fact, is the offence of the petitioner? Additionally, even if it be held that there was an offence then the punishment/penalty imposed is not proportionate and the petitioner appears to have been made to suffer without any fault of his own. It is now high time that the Board should consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. 10. For the foregoing reasons there fore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law.