JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The order of dismissal from service dated 24.8.1999 (Annexure-1) passed by the Bihar State Electricity Board (B.S.E.B) and communicated through the Joint Secretary of the Board is under challenge by the petitioner who was a Store Assistant. The order in appeal dated 7.3.2000 passed by the Chairman, B.S.E.B contained in memo no. 383 dated 18.3.2000 (Annexure-2) is also under challenge as it upheld the order of punishment. Petitioner has also made a prayer for reinstatement in service upon setting aside of the order of punishment and full salary for the period of suspension and arrears of salary on his reinstatement. 3. The charges are at Annexure-14 dated 10.11.1994. It alleges that the petitioner, while posted at Patna Electricity Supply Undertaking (PESU), West Patna, was proceeded for dereliction of duty, misappropriation of Board's property and gross misconduct. He was authorized by the then Electricity Supply Engineer, PESU to take delivery of Rail Poles from the stockyard of the Steel Authority of India (S.A.I.L.) at Rajendra Nagar, Patna against the enumerated delivery orders and transport them to the various work sites as per the allocation made by the Electricity Supply Engineer in the allotment order no.5 dated 13.1.1990. According to the receipt challan of the S.A.I.L, he received a total of 141.30 Tonnes of Rails out of which he transported 128.355 Tones of Rail only to the various work sites. Thus, he could not deliver all the Rails received from the S.A.I.L and misappropriated 12.945 Tonnes of rails worth Rs.1,14,498.52 only. The memo of evidence contains several documentary evidences which are letters, Inquiry Report, Show cause of the petitioner etc and also list of witnesses i.e. Sri S.S. Rekhi, the then Electric Supply Engineer, PESU(West), Sri R.P.Singh, Chief Engineer, Sri Lal Bachcha Singh, the then Assistant Electrical Engineer, Store, Sri B.P.Singh, Executive Electrical Engineer, Construction Division, PESU. The petitioner's reply was found unsatisfactory on the charges. A departmental proceeding was initiated in which petitioner participated and thereafter inquiry report was submitted holding the petitioner guilty, which is at Annexure-25 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, on the issuance of the second show cause and upon submission of petitioner's reply, the order of punishment has been passed. The order of punishment was challenged in appeal before the Chairman, B.S.E.B. The memo of appeal is at Annexure-23. Thereafter, on the issuance of the second show cause and upon submission of petitioner's reply, the order of punishment has been passed. The order of punishment was challenged in appeal before the Chairman, B.S.E.B. The memo of appeal is at Annexure-23. The Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of punishment of dismissal from service as per Annexure-2 dated 18.3.2000. 4. The grounds for challenge on behalf of the petitioner are that the materials were duly collected from the stores of the S.A.I.L and delivered at the respective sites. In support of this Annexure-12 has been relied which is stores receipts and payment authorizing vouchers. The documents at Annexure-12 shows a total of 110.560 Metric Tonne of 192 pieces of Pole and 30.740 Metric Tonne of 45 pieces of Poles said to have been delivered. The said document contained the signature of Store Keeper, Assistant Engineer as also Executive Engineer on different dates in the year 1991. It is submitted that perusal of the said document would show that the materials were directly delivered at the sites after taking delivery from the Stores of S.A.I.L and the petitioner has been proceeded against unjustifiably and after much delay. It is further submitted that as per the Board's Financial and Account Code, the stores received should be verified within three days and taken in stores received books. Delays exceeding this limits should be briefly explained in the remarks column of the stores received book. In this case, it is stated that charges have been raised against the petitioner in 1994, though the delivery was made in the year 1990 itself. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has not considered the materials produced during the inquiry and simply drawn a conclusion on the basis of the written statement of the delinquent employee that there was a shortage of the supplied materials. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer himself has observed that the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Stores was also accountable in the matter involved and opined that the Management may like to evaluate separately as to the responsibility in consonance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board. It is submitted that said person was examined as witness and if the allegation assumingly are worth proceeding, the other person responsible has not been proceeded against by the respondents. It is submitted that said person was examined as witness and if the allegation assumingly are worth proceeding, the other person responsible has not been proceeded against by the respondents. On this count there is a disparity in treatment amongst similarly situated persons, which is in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vrs. State of Madha Pradesh & others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 . Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the impugned order has also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority did not take into account the defence taken by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause. Therefore the order suffers from non application of mind on that count. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem & others Vrs. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469 . It is further argued that from the way proceeding have been conducted it would appear that it was intended to determine the petitioners' guilty only and not to reach to the truth of the matter, which is the object of a Disciplinary Enquiry. In support of the aforesaid proposition, petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni Vrs. Y.P. Education Society & others reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 . It is further submitted that the evidences adduced during the inquiry should have a sufficient nexus with the charges as has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajiv Kumar Ranjan Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2013(3) JLJR 561 , which is not the case here. Lastly, it has been submitted that the respondents themselves have committed an error in not verifying the materials at site within the time prescribed by the Rules and later on proceeded to punish the petitioner by taking advantage of their own wrong, which is impermissible in law as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others Vrs. Shanti Ranjan Sarkar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 90 . 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.E.B has referred to the content of the counter affidavit and made submissions. Shanti Ranjan Sarkar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 90 . 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.E.B has referred to the content of the counter affidavit and made submissions. It is submitted that in course of the site verification by the concerned Officer, it was found that according to the receipt / challan of the S.A.I.L the petitioner received a total of 140.30 Tonnes of Rail Poles out of which he transported 128.355 Tonnes of rail poles only to various work sites. The S.R.V was verified and checked by the concerned officer and found to be improper. The case was examined again and again and thereafter petitioner was proceeded against after issuance of the charge-sheet. Only after giving him due opportunity, guilt of the petitioner was established. It is further submitted that the allegation of misappropriation was inquired into by the Vigilance Department and in Vigilance Case No. 14 of 1993, petitioner's involvement was found. Accordingly, vide Board's order no. 542 dated 17.12.1997 prosecution of the petitioner was sanctioned. Learned counsel further submitted that on being prima-facie found guilty of misappropriation, petitioner was placed under suspension through Office order dated 20.10.1994. The shortage of Rail Poles was detected in course of spot verification completed by In-charge Store Officer and the report was submitted by him for further necessary action against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in course of investigation by the Vigilance Department act of forgery by the petitioner has also been established. The rail poles were not delivered at the sites and therefore, 12.945 Tonnes of rail poles were found short. The remark entered in the S.R.V No. 19757 dated 28.3.1990 i.e., “let the Item No. 2 be verified” is a clear proof of the said misappropriation and gross misconduct found against the petitioner. At para 36 of the said counter affidavit, it has been further stated that upon repeated inquiry into the matter, the charges levelled are proved against him. Therefore after giving due opportunity, in compliance of the Principle of Natural Justice, the inquiry proceeding has been held which has led to the dismissal of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any errors nor the proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of Principle of Natural Justice. 6. Therefore after giving due opportunity, in compliance of the Principle of Natural Justice, the inquiry proceeding has been held which has led to the dismissal of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any errors nor the proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of Principle of Natural Justice. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the relevant materials on record including the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. It appears from the pleadings on record and averments made in the writ petition itself that the petitioner was assigned the work of collecting rail poles from the Stockyard of S.A.I.L to be delivered at different work sites as per the order dated 13.3.1990. Though it is claimed by the petitioner that the delivery was made and receipt were also submitted through S.R.V. No.19757 dated 20.3.1990, but on 9.5.1990 itself the petitioner was asked to explain as to why only 127.896 tonnes of rail poles were available against the total collected 141.30 tonnes of rail poles. Petitioner gave his explanation thereafter and sought time to offer his further explanation. He was also supplied the photo copy of the documents and directed to submit full explanation vide letter dated 11.10.1990 which includes the store receipts and payment authorizing vouchers, which the learned counsel for the petitioner has already relied upon earlier. In fact, finding the alleged shortage of rail poles to the tune of 12.945 tonnes amounting to Rs. 1,14,498.52, it was ordered to be recovered from the personal account of the petitioner vide order dated 14.2.1991, which is also part of the record and enclosed to the counter affidavit by the respondent as Annexure-B series. This was however subject to the decision of the Board on the findings of the inquiry. The respondents, thereafter did not find the explanation of the petitioner satisfactory and placed him under suspension on 29.10.1994(Annexure-13) with his Headquarter at the Office of Chief Engineer, Dhanbad area of the Board. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was initiated on 10.11.1994 for the aforesaid charges. It further appears that the petitioner was also proceeded against in a Vigilance Case in relation to the same shortage of pole and Board has also sanctioned prosecution against the petitioner as per the statement made in the counter affidavit through office order dated 17.12.1997. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was initiated on 10.11.1994 for the aforesaid charges. It further appears that the petitioner was also proceeded against in a Vigilance Case in relation to the same shortage of pole and Board has also sanctioned prosecution against the petitioner as per the statement made in the counter affidavit through office order dated 17.12.1997. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal case is at the stage of trial. The respondents thereafter conducted the inquiry and the petitioner was allowed to participate and also cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The written statement were submitted by the prosecution as well as by the delinquent petitioner where after the inquiry report held the petitioner guilty. From perusal of the inquiry report also it appears that the petitioner in his defence also only tried to explain the reasons as to why such shortage might be there. The factum of shortage does not stand disputed even as per the stand of the petitioner. More over the prosecution witnesses appear to have supported the charges levelled against the petitioner in course of their deposition as also during their cross examination. Various pleas appear to have been raised by the petitioner that the length of the poles supplied might have been cut by the Contractor and the remaining poles would have been left at the sites. He also appears to have taken a plea that erected poles would not have been properly measured taking into consideration the length covered in the earth. The Inquiry Officer after considering the materials adduced during the course of the proceeding as also the deposition of the prosecution witnesses namely i.e. Sri S.S. Rekhi, the then Electric Supply Engineer, PESU(West), Sri R.P.Singh, Chief Engineer, Sri Lal Bachcha Singh, the then Assistant Electrical Engineer, Store, Sri B.P.Singh, Executive Electrical Engineer, Construction Division, PESU, found the guilt of the petitioner relating to shortage of materials established. However, he made an observation that the Management should evaluate the matter separately as to the responsibility of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Stores. Therefore, it is not that the charges against the petitioner were not established relating to the shortage of materials. However, he made an observation that the Management should evaluate the matter separately as to the responsibility of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Stores. Therefore, it is not that the charges against the petitioner were not established relating to the shortage of materials. The allegations against the petitioner that during course of delivery there was shortage of materials as compared to what has been delivered from the stockyard of S.A.I.L appears to be fully established in course of the departmental inquiry in which the petitioner fully participated. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the document at Annexure-12 being the Store Receipts and Payment Vouchers but learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show that the Inquiry Officer had failed to take into account such material despite it being produced during the course of inquiry. 7. It is well settled that in a domestic inquiry, this Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review is not suppose to weigh the evidences and interfere with the findings of facts arrived therein unless the findings are based upon no evidence or are held perverse. In the instant case the inquiry appears to have been conducted after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and charges were established against him. The petitioner was also served the second show cause notice and on his reply the order of dismissal from service has been passed by the competent authority i.e. the Bihar State Electricity Board itself. It therefore appears that the impugned order of dismissal does not suffer from error of law and on findings of fact and are also not in violation of principle of natural justice. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner also do not come to his support as the materials which are said to have been produced during the course of inquiry have definite nexus to the charge which are alleged and established against him The charges on being established, the delinquent employee is bound to face punishment as is proportionate to the misconduct so established. The order impugned therefore also does not appear to be suffer from non application of mind. 8. The order impugned therefore also does not appear to be suffer from non application of mind. 8. In such circumstances, on the conspectus of the entire facts, reasons and the principle of law, it cannot be said that the impugned order of punishment are vitiated in law or in facts which warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is also observed at the end that the respondent-Board, if satisfied with the involvement of any other persons may form opinion to take appropriate action in the matter against the said person. However, no grounds for interference are made out in the present writ petition, so far as order of punishment is concerned. 9. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.