IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7858 of 2010 MANOJ KUMAR S/O SURENDRA PRASAD JAISWAL R/O VILL.- SAPANA, P.S.- TIKAPATTI, DISTT.- PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (WELFARE) KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 5. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SUPAUL 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER NIRMALI, SUPAUL 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BIRPUR, SUPAUL 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAGHOPUR, SUPAUL ----------- 2. 23/02/2011 In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of punishment passed by the Collector, Supaul, as contained in memo dated 24.3.2009, vide Annexure-5. By this order, petitioner has been awarded punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect on the ground that in the enquiry, out of many charges, one charge was found proved that being an Accountant, petitioner could not keep effective control on the Nazir because of which Nazir has not maintained the account register properly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the capacity of Accountant petitioner had no administrative control on the Nazir. Therefore, this charge is non est. He submits that it was the Block Development Officer who could keep control on Nazir and take action for 2 failure in performance of his duties in maintaining records. However, from Annexure-6, it appears that petitioner had already filed his representation before the Commissioner, Kosi Division as far back as on 14.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation has not been considered by the Commissioner so far and no final orders have been passed on the same. In view of the fact that the Rules provide for an appeal against any order of punishment, representation of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the Commissioner as an appeal and orders ought to have been passed on the same. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Kosi Division to consider the representation of the petitioner, if necessary, to give him an opportunity of hearing and thereafter to pass final orders on the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)