Order 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at this stage itself. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of notice, on behalf of the respondents. 4. Petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 22.6.2000 issued by the respondent no.3 on the basis of a departmental inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer, as also the order dated 15.1.2001, passed by the appellate authority, which was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter dated 3.2.2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has completed about 33 years of service under the respondent No.1 with an unblemished record. It is stated that petitioner was the General Secretary of the Electricity Workers' Union and has worked for the welfare of the Electricity workers as well as the Board in a very cordial and peaceful manner. It is stated that on 10.2.96, the respondent No.7 Sri Raj Nanadan Singh, then posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer (Stores), BSEB, Patna along with some officials of the Stores Department, Patna came to Ranchi to lodge some FIR in connection with alleged shortage of stores material found for the period of October, 1978 to July, 1979 of Hatia Stores. However, he could not lodge the FIR up to 14.2.96 for the reasons best known to him. It is submitted that petitioner on 15.2.96 at about 4:00 p.m. along with some other workers went to the office chamber of respondent No.6 for some discussion in connection with certain grievances of the workers. It is further submitted that the respondent No.7, who was not earlier known to the petitioner, submitted a letter being letter No.268 dated 19.2.96 before the Chief Engineer (Stores & Purchase), BSEB, Patna making baseless allegation that he was slapped/assaulted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is entirely incorrect and baseless story. It is further submitted that the respondent No.7, who was not earlier known to the petitioner, submitted a letter being letter No.268 dated 19.2.96 before the Chief Engineer (Stores & Purchase), BSEB, Patna making baseless allegation that he was slapped/assaulted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is entirely incorrect and baseless story. It is further submitted that respondent No.7 in the said letter dated 19.2.96 also questioned the integrity of respondent No.6 as well as that of his other colleagues and the officers who had come with him from Patna apart from sub-ordinate officers posted at Ranchi, complaining that they fled away after the occurrence. It is further submitted that respondent did not file any complaint or lodge FIR with the concerned police station in respect of alleged occurrence. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that petitioner was served the charge sheet vide Board's order dated 8.4.96 and Deputy Director of Personneal, BSEB, Patna was appointed as Inquiry Officer and the letter No.268 dated 19.2.96 was submitted by the respondent No.7 before him as evidence naming Sri Raj Nandan Singh, Electrical Superintending Engineer (Stores), the complainant (respondent No.7) as the sole prosecution witness for the Board. It is submitted that petitioner fully cooperated with the departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that during the inquiry, the petitioner requested inquiry officer for some papers relating to the charges, but the same was refused by the inquiry officer stating that the same was not relevant for the purpose of inquiry. It is further submitted that petitioner also requested for some extension of time for production of his defence witnesses but the same was also denied by the inquiry officer. It is further submitted that finding no way out, the petitioner ultimately submitted his written argument before the inquiry officer on 23.4.99 stating the facts in detail; however, without proper consideration of petitioner's written argument, report was submitted by the inquiry officer holding the petitioner responsible and recommending the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty. Considering the report submitted by the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of dismissal vide order dated 22.6.2000 (Annexure-7). It is further submitted that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 18.7.2000 before the Chairman, BSEB, Patna (appellate authority). Considering the report submitted by the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of dismissal vide order dated 22.6.2000 (Annexure-7). It is further submitted that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 18.7.2000 before the Chairman, BSEB, Patna (appellate authority). It is submitted that though the petitioner raised all the grounds before the appellate authority but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide its letter dated 3.2.2001 (Annexure-9). It is further submitted that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, is very harsh in nature. It is submitted that petitioner has rendered about 33 years of service under the respondent No.1 with an unblemished service record. It is also submitted that orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are in clear contravention of principles of natural justice and therefore, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2000 Vol-I LAB. I.C. 221 in support of his submission. 8. As against that, the respondent Nos.1,2,3 & 7 have filed counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that inquiry officer, after a thorough inquiry and ample opportunities given to the delinquent and on the basis of all documents, papers, evidences etc., has submitted inquiry report. It is submitted that on the basis of the inquiry report and other documents, the petitioner was given opportunity to give the reply of the show-cause, but instead of submitting reply the petitioner gave a petition to extend the date of submission of the show-cause and to supply of same papers, but after examination of the petitioner legally and sympathetically his application was rejected and the petitioner was requested to submit his reply latest by 25.8.99 but the petitioner submitted his reply after a long year. It is submitted that the decision has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of examination of all the relevant documents. It is further submitted that the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by a reasoned order. It is submitted that the decision has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of examination of all the relevant documents. It is further submitted that the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by a reasoned order. It is also submitted that there is no procedural lapse in the departmental proceeding and there is finding of facts recorded by the inquiry officer. Therefore, this Court could not interfere in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority and this writ petition is deserved to be dismissed. 9. Respondent-JSEB has filed counter-affidavit on 16.2.2010 wherein it has been stated that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) was constituted and become functional w.e.f. 1.4.2001. Since all the departmental proceedings were concluded by the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and the appellate order was also passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna on 4.1.2001 before the creation of Jharkhand State Electricity Board, therefore, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board is not connected with the proceeding of the petitioner in any manner. 10. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner has been dismissed from the service on the basis of report submitted by the inquiry officer in a departmental proceeding and on the basis of such inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal. On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the petitioner submitted an application demanding certain documents/papers from the inquiry officer but the same was rejected by the inquiry officer stating that the documents/papers demanded by the petitioner were not relevant. It appears that thereafter petitioner submitted his explanation and on the basis of explanation submitted by the petitioner, inquiry officer proceeded further and reached to the conclusion that the charge is proved against the delinquent. It appears that during the course of inquiry only one witness was examined i.e. complainant No other independent witnesses were examined through it was possible to call for such independent eye witnesses present at the time of occurrence of alleged incident. It appears that the findings were recorded on the basis of solitary witness i.e. complainant. It appears that during the course of inquiry only one witness was examined i.e. complainant No other independent witnesses were examined through it was possible to call for such independent eye witnesses present at the time of occurrence of alleged incident. It appears that the findings were recorded on the basis of solitary witness i.e. complainant. It also appears that on the basis of report, submitted by the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority without affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity as also without considering the factors, which are required to be considered before inflicting such harsh punishment, has passed an order of dismissal. On perusal of the papers, it appears that petitioner has rendered more than 30 years of service under the respondent-Board with an unblemished record. It also appears that petitioner was the General Secretary of the Electricity Workers' Union and has worked for the welfare of the Electricity workers as well as the Board in a very cordial and peaceful manner. Respondents are unable to point out anything on record that past service record of the petitioner was not good. In fact, the petitioner has made positive statement that his service record throughout remains unblemished and the respondents are unable to contradict this fact, therefore, disciplinary authority while taking final decision about the quantum of punishment is required to consider various factors including past service record of the petitioner before framing such harsh penalty. In the instant case, disciplinary authority has failed to consider the very aspect of the matter and imposed harsh penalty without proper consideration of the factors, which are required to be considered before passing such order. It also appears that even appellate authority proceeded further on the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and the various grounds raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority were not properly considered by the appellate authority and therefore, it can be said that the proceedings were concluded without following the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity for submitting his explanation. Inquiry officer had not supplied the required documents as demanded by the delinquent and the said fact has not been considered by the appellate authority at the time of hearing of appeal. 11. I have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2000 Vol-I LAB. I.C.221. Inquiry officer had not supplied the required documents as demanded by the delinquent and the said fact has not been considered by the appellate authority at the time of hearing of appeal. 11. I have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2000 Vol-I LAB. I.C.221. Ratio laid down in the said judgment is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Paragraph- 3 and 5 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case, which reads as under: “3. Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant. Shri Virender Singh, and witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant. 5. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no proper enquiry held by the authorities and on this short ground we quash the order of dismissal passed against the appellant by setting aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service. Considering the fact of long lapse of time before the date of dismissal and reinstatement, and no blame can be put only on the door of the respondents, we think it appropriate to award 50 per cent of the back salary being payable to the appellant. We thus allow the appeal filed by the appellant. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” . 12. We thus allow the appeal filed by the appellant. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” . 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the settled legal position, mentioned in the above referred judgment, present writ petition is deserved to be allowed and the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 22.6.2000, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority on 15.1.2001, is deserved to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the same are ordered to be quashed and set aside. Since by now the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation, there is no question of actual reinstatement in the service, however, the petitioner be paid 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation. 13. The respondent-JSEB, under whom the petitioner has served at the time of superannuation, shall pay the legally admissible dues of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As the petitioner has superannuated, pension papers be processed by the respondent-Board expeditiously. Since the petitioner has retired after bifurcation of the State of Bihar and therefore, in view of the understanding arrived at between the two Boards dated 27.12.2003, JSEB shall be responsible for making requisite payment. 14. This writ petition is allowed, accordingly. Petition allowed.