IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14255 of 2003 JANARDAN PRASAD S/o late Sanichar Prasad resident of village Telmar, P.S. Harnaut, Distt. Nalanda presently posted as Market Secretary, A.P.M.C. Barh, P.S. Barh, Dist. Patna Versus 1. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (dissolved) having its office at Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna through its Administrator, Dr. B. Rajendar I.A.S. (Managing Director namely Mr. Sanjay Kumar Rakesh) 2. Administrator (Managing Director) Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (dissolved), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Director Vigilance, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (dissolved), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. Secretary, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna 5. Vigilance Officer, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 6. Regional Director, Agricultural Marketing , Boring Road, Patna 7. State of Bihar 8. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Bihar ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. B.K. Singh Chauhan, Advocate 08/ 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, who at the relevant time was serving as the Market Secretary, Banmankhi, is aggrieved by the order of the Managing Director, bearing Memo No. 131 dated 10.3.2003, whereunder he has held the petitioner guilty of the three charges and has inflicted the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect. The order is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the three charges, namely, Charge Nos. 3,4 and 10 has been found established against him under the impugned order. Charge No.3 is about failure of the petitioner to convene the meeting of the Market Committee in compliance of the order of the Chairman. 2 Such charge, according to the petitioner is not proved as the Sub-Divisional Officer notified by the Government who is the ex officio Chairman of the Committee was on leave. Sri B.P. Sharma, the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Purnea was asked by the Collector, Purnea under Memo No. 411 dated 4.5.1990 to discharge the routine duties of the office of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Purnea and Sri Sharma called upon the petitioner to convene the meeting of the Market Committee, as Sri Sharma was not notified as Sub-Divisional Officer by the State Government, he could not have issued direction for convening the meeting of the Market Committee on the basis of the authorization made by the Collector, Purnea under memo no. 411 dated 4.5.1990. Such authorization made by Collector shall not empower him to function as ex officio Chairman of the Market Committee. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the instruction of the Managing Director of the Marketing Board, bearing letter No. 6124 dated 13.12.1984, whereunder it has been specifically directed that the officials of the Board should act upon the instructions of officers, who have been notified by the State Government and should not act on the instructions of the officers acting under local arrangement. 4. The other charge, namely, charge no.4 is about issue of parwana for collection of market fee without deposit of the entire settlement amount by the settlee as settlee had only 3 deposited Rs. 2,000/- against the settlement amount of Rs. 5,000/-, still the parwana was issued. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bid was held on 3.5.1989 and prior thereto, petitioner was on earned leave for the period between 17.4.1989 to 29.4.1989 and when he returned to take over charge as the Market Secretary, Sri Suresh Prasad Verma, who was officiating as In-charge Market Secretary during the absence of the petitioner, refused to hand over charge and while petitioner was not serving as Market Secretary, the bid was held on 3.5.1989 and parwana issued by Sri Verma and other in whose presence the bid was held. In this connection, reference has been made to the averments made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition and the documents referred thereto, which are contained in Annexure-14 series. 5. Charge no. 10 is about delay caused by the petitioner in passing the Budget of the Market Committee. In this connection also with reference to the averments made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it is submitted that petitioner is not at all responsible for the delay caused in approving the budget as the delay was caused at the instance of the Chairman of the Committee the Sub-Divisional Officer, Purnea who was always busy in connection with other official duties. In this connection reference is made to the correspondence(s) contained in Annexure-15 series. 6. While considering the aforesaid submission, this 4 Court noticed that in reply to the second show cause notice dated 27.5.2002, Annexure-8, vide show cause reply dated 21.6.2002, Annexure-9, petitioner has not made submissions noted in paragraphs 19 to 23 of the writ petition and relied upon during the hearing of this petition. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the aforesaid submissions can be made out from the close perusal of the annexures appended with the second show cause reply in 52 pages. It was well neigh impossible for the Managing Director to have perused those 52 pages in order to cull out the submissions. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 10.3.2003, Annexure-1 has been passed without the benefit of the submissions noted in paragraphs 19 to 23 of the writ petition, which have not been controverted in the counter affidavit, as such, this Court deems it expedient to set aside the impugned order dated 10.3.2003, Annexure-1 and remit back the matter to the Administrator with direction to the petitioner to submit his second show cause reply dealing with charge nos. 3,4 and 10, with reference to the averments made in paragraphs 19 to 23 of the writ petition within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, requisition therefor , petitioner shall file by Monday i.e. 30.11.2009 and the Administrator shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the submissions made in the second show cause reply filed pursuant to this order, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt 5 of the second show cause reply along with a certified copy of this order. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)