Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3908 of 2004 ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Chakradhar Prasad, Resident of Village- Chandasi, P.O. and P.S.-Noorsarai, District-Nalanda, at present residing at Rajiv Nagar, P.S.-B. Digha, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, through its Secretary 2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 4. The Administrator, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary, Establishment, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORAL ORDER 9 19-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging office order vide memo no.4321 dated 231.03.2002 by which the Administrator, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (herein after referred to as “the Board” for the sake of brevity) inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect upon the petitioner revoking his suspension order and further directing that the petitioner will not be paid any thing except subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension and further that the period of suspension will not be treated in his service period. Patna High Court CWJC No.3908 of 2004 (9) dt.19-09-2012 2 3. It is not disputed that in the year 2000 when the petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant in the Board, Kotwali P.S.case No.441 of 2000 was instituted on the basis of written application filed by the Secretary of the Board on 27.11.2000 for offences punishable under [STATUTE] against Madhu Sudan Sah and Abdul Manan, the permanent and temporary employee of the Board respectively and in that case the petitioner was also implicated. However, vide order dated 09.01.2000, the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna passed order dated 09.10.2011 taking cognizance against the petitioner and one Smt. Sudama Kumari Singh and exonerated the main accused Madhu Sudan Sah from the proceeding. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Cr.Misc.No.13499 of 2003 which was heard by a Bench of this Court on 19.12.2003 and notices were directed to be issued to Opposite Parties no.2 to 4 and pending hearing of the said case further proceeding in the court below was stayed. 4. It transpires that thereafter the petitioner was put under suspension by the authorities of the Board by order dated 19.05.2001 and thereafter on 26.05.2001 a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner in which a single charge was mentioned that in the year 1995 he was Incharge of the records and he was authorized to send the records to the required place through Patna High Court CWJC No.3908 of 2004 (9) dt.19-09-2012 3 proper persons, but the relevant record was sent by him through a daily wage employee although regular employ, namely, Rajesh Kumar should have been used for that purpose. Hence the charge was that the petitioner had encouraged corruption. 5. However subsequently the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 27.08.2001, whereafter show cause notices were issued by the disciplinary authority in response to which the petitioner submitted his show cause reply. After the said procedure the impugned order dated 23.03.2002 was passed by the Administrator of the Board which is under challenge in the writ petition. It is admitted case of the parties that against such an order of Administrator of the Board no appeal is provided under the concerned provisions of law. Hence it is more important for such authorities to take extra precaution considering every point raised by the proceedee and every evidence on record before passing any such order, specially when such major punishment of compulsory retirement was being passed. 6. From a perusal of the said order, it is quite apparent that the disciplinary authority had merely affirmed the enquiry report without considering the grounds on which the said report was submitted and the evidence which were produced before the enquiry officer. The impugned order does not even enumerate the Patna High Court CWJC No.3908 of 2004 (9) dt.19-09-2012 4 points raised by the petitioner in his show cause reply and merely in one sentence it was rejected that the show caused filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory and on that basis there was no occasion to continue the service of the petitioner in the Board. 7. It is further claimed that in the said order a further ground has been taken by the disciplinary authority that the previous record shows that once a minor punishment had been given to the petitioner although it was not part of the charge against the petitioner and there was no occasion for the authority to pass order on the said basis. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon two decision one of the Apex Court in case of Roop Singh Negi Vrs. Punjab National Bank & Ors reported in (2009)2 SCC 570 and the other of a Bench of this Court in case of Parmanand Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2006(2) PLJR 120. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that neither there is any procedural laches on the part of the authorities concerned nor they have committed any illegality in the proceeding because at every stage the petitioner was informed about the development and notices were duly issued to him due to which he appeared in the enquiry

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.