JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. Vikash Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 28.5.2010 which was passed in pursuance to the order dated 15.1.2010 passed by this court in W.P (S) No. 3824 of 2004. 3. The petitioner was punished for recovery of Rs. 10,614/- from his salary in two installments for shortage of the cash amount which was not properly inserted in the cash book. The said punishment order was confirmed by letter dated 24.10.2002.The petitioner filed a departmental appeal against the order dated 24.10.2002 before the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, which was rejected by letter dated 8.3.2003. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved before this court by way of filing the writ petition being W.P(S) No. 3824 of 2004 challenging the charge sheet dated 17.7.1999, order dated 24.10.2002 and the letter dated 8.2.2003. In the meantime, State of Bihar had bifurcated and State of Jharkhand came in existence and the petitioner was allotted in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board 10.3.2002 where he joined on 24.3.2002 and thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 2.4.2008 against the order of punishment dated 24.10.2002. In the meantime, the petitioner was informed that the appeal preferred by him had been reviewed by the Board and it was found that there is no serious charge against the petitioner and as such he was acquitted from the charge and due to this, the petitioner withdrew the W.P(S) No. 3824 of 2004 from this court. Thereafter, Jharkhand State Electricity Board passed the order on 28.5.2010 whereby review order was recalled only on the ground that the person, who had reviewed the order, had got no jurisdiction to review the punishment order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the letter dated 25.10.1997 annexed as annexure-8 to the I.A No. 2598 of 2011 which was issued by the Assistant Electrical Engineer in which it has been stated that he had deposited amount in question and one Bharat Bhushan Prasad, who was cashier at the relevant time, was not incorporated the deposited amount in cash book. He further submits that the annexure-9 annexed to the I.A., i.e. letter dated 28.6.1999 had also not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 28.5.2010.He further submits that the impugned order has been passed only taking into account that the person, who had reviewed the order, had got no jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, Mr.M.K.Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed taking into account all the facts. He further submits that the petitioner has been provided all the opportunity of being heard and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that the petitioner himself has admitted that the person, who has passed the impugned order, has got no jurisdiction, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.5.2010. 5. Thus this court finds force in the arguments made by Mr.Vikash Kumar that the annexures-8 and 9 have not been taken into consideration in the impugned order and which clearly says that the petitioner had deposited the amount in question with the cashier and the cashier had not incorporated that amount in the cash book. 6. On this limited point, the impugned order dated 28.5.2010 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent to take a fresh decision taking into account the annexures-8 and 9 annexed to the I.A No. 2598 of 2011 of this writ petition. 7. With the aforesaid observation this writ petition stands disposed of. .