IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.70 of 2002 MANAUR HUSSAIN, S/O AKHATAR HUSSAIN, R/O VILLAGE-MAUNA (TARAWAN), P.S.-NASARIGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS (SASARAM) AT PRESENT POSTED AS HEAD MASTER, PRATHAMIK VIDYALAYA, PANDITPUR (NUAON), P.S.-KUCHHILA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABHUA). ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, PATNA, BIHAR. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. 4. THE DY. COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, KAIMUR-CUM- CONDUCTING OFFICER. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KAIMUR (BHABHUA). 6. AREA EDUCTION OFFICER, BHABHUA. 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NUAON, KAIMUR (BHABHUA). ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 29.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case the petitioner has challenged Anneuxre-7, an order communicated to the petitioner through memo no. 455 dated 29.06.1998 by the District Superintendent of Education-cum- Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Bhabhua informing him that as per the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, Kaimur dated 12.06.1998, the petitioner is awarded punishment of censor and with-holding of any further payment towards his salary of the suspension period except the subsistence allowance and he has been released from the suspension. It appears that petitioner was served show cause notice vide Anneuxre-1 dated 9.10.1997 in respect - 2 - of having not performed his duties with regard to revision of voter list of booth no. 196 entrusted to him on 15.9.1997. The petitioner submitted his show cause vide Anneuxre-2, dated 20.10.1997 in which he intimated the respondent, S.D.O., Mohania that he had completed the work of revision of voter list and submitted the papers in the block office on 15.10.1997. From Annexure-3 dated 28.10.1997, it appears that the Block Development Officer, Nuaon also informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohania that the petitioner had completed the work of revision of voter list of the concerned booth within the time limit and, therefore, any further action against the petitioner was not required. However, from Annexure-4, it appears that by letter dated 10.10.1997, the Establishment Deputy Collector, Kaimur had already been appointed as enquiry officer and the enquiry officer was requested to obtain show cause and submit his enquiry report within one month. A charge-sheet was also issued separately to the petitioner vide Annexure-5. Petitioner submitted his show cause vide Anneuxre-6. It appears that after submission of the show cause by the petitioner the matter was placed before the District Education Establishment committee which took the decision in its meeting - 3 - dated 12.6.1998 for awarding punishment to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure-7) was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though a minor punishment was awarded to the petitioner, as the enquiry officer was appointed in the case and separate charge-sheet was issued the respondents were legally bound to hold a detailed enquiry by giving the petitioner an opportunity to appear in the same and produce evidence and documents if necessary. Thereafter, respondents were also legally bound to serve the enquiry report on the petitioner and ask for second show cause from him before taking any decision in the matter and before awarding punishment to him. He submits that even though the punishment was a minor punishment, Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 was applicable in the matter, but as the enquiry officer had been appointed by the disciplinary authority and formal charge-sheet had been issued to him, the procedural requirement of Rule 55 had to be followed which has not been done in this case. Therefore, he submitted that the entire proceeding and the punishment order stand vitiated on account of non-compliance of the procedural requirement of Rule 55 of the said - 4 - Rules. In support of said contention he relied upon by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anarsi Ram Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2001 (3) PLJR 314. In the said judgment, the Division Bench noticed that although minor punishment was awarded to the incumbent but since departmental proceeding was initiated, enquiry officer was appointed, and the order of punishment was passed on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the procedure adopted was one under Rule 55 and not Rule 55A, therefore, non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner renders the initiation of the proceeding and the punishment order de hors the rules. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. However, learned counsel for the respondents accepts the legal proposition as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. In the circumstances, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order (Annexure-7) is not sustainable in law and is fit to be quashed. The impugned order (Annexure-7) is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for consideration from the stage of appointment of the enquiry officer and - 5 - service of charge-sheet upon the petitioner. If the enquiry officer requires, he may given opportunity to the petitioner to file another show cause in the matter and thereafter after following the procedures of Rule 55 of the said Rules final decision shall be taken in accordance with law. Since the matter is old one, the respondents are directed to complete the entire process and pass final orders in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As the matter is an old one it is directed that in case final orders are not passed in the matter within the four months the entire proceeding shall stand quashed on account of inordinate delay. The writ application is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)