Shyam Sundar Singh v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. off Bihar, Patna

Patna High Court CWJC No.7080 of 2006 (4) dt.08-08-2012 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was Block Development Officer at Masaurhi in the district of Patna. It appears that an inspection was conducted in the block by flying squad and an enquiry report was submitted before the Chief Minister. The enquiry report made several allegations against the petitioner. Apparently, the Chief Minister ordered for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Accordingly, on

17.7.2001, a show cause was issued to the petitioner along with memo of charges. In he meantime, on 31.7.2002, the petitioner superannuated. In the year 2003, the petitioner filed his show cause. The petitioner alleges that thereafter he had heard nothing from the department till he received another notice, issued on

18.3.2004 (Annexure 5). In the said notice it was stated that the petitioner had been issued a second show cause earlier but had not responded. Thereafter the State had taken a decision to forfeit 10% of his pensionary benefits. If he had to say anything he should immediately responded. The petitioner responded but thereafter received no further communication. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 22.8.2004, the proceedings were finally terminated with an order of penalty of forfeiture of 10% of Patna High Court CWJC No.7080 of 2006 (4) dt.08-08-2012 3 pensionary benefits. Against this, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was disposed of by the said order, as contained in Annexure 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole proceedings were farce. After the charges were served on the petitioner, the petitioner filed his show cause. Nothing was done thereafter. Apparently, no enquiry officer was appointed or what ever enquiry report was drawn up was never disclosed to the petitioner and straight away the petitioner was found guilty and decision to punish was taken.

At this stage, a show cause was then issued. Thus, it is submitted that the whole proceedings stood vitiated. It is further stated that, in the meantime, the petitioner having superannuated there was no order for continuance of the proceedings and as such no order of punishment could be passed forfeiting 10% of pensionary benefits. Having considered the matter, in my view, it not necessary to decide the second issue. The petitioner must succeed on the first attack itself. A counter affidavit has been filed in which assertions of the petitioner with regard to there being no enquiry, enquiry report not having been disclosed to the petitioner, there being no hearing in the matter, which are basic facts, have not at all been denied. To Patna High Court CWJC No.7080 of 2006 (4) dt.08-08-2012 4 Court it appears that merely because the Chief Minister had ordered for initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner, a decision was taken to any how punish the petitioner.

No procedure whatsoever was followed. A notice that was served on the petitioner was ultimately pre- deciding the issue of punishment what happened to the enquiry stage is any body’s guess. In such a situation this Court cannot uphold the order of punishment. The appellate order is equally innocuous; it merely states that the appeal having been examined, there is no justification in interfering. There is not a single ground raised by the petitioner that has been noticed much less discussed. This depicts a very sorry state of affairs though the appellate authority is not required to writ the judgment like a court but it must show that it has consciously considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. It has not considered the grounds and disclosed how they were found to be wrong or misconceived. In other words, it must be a speaking order as well. For the reasons stated above, the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure- 8 and the appellate order, as contained in Annexure 10, are quashed. Patna High Court CWJC No.7080 of 2006 (4) dt.08-08-2012 5 The writ petition, stands, allowed with all consequential benefits. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) singh/-