IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13428 of 2009 BHIM PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Prasad, Adv. Mr. Md. Faiz, Adv. Mr. Amish Kumar, Adv. For the State of Bihar:- Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. For the State of Jharkhand:- Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Adv. ------------------ 2. 15.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State of Bihar and Counsel for the State of Jharkhand. Prior to the reorganization of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was posted at Jamshedpur. He was given a show cause notice dated 25.6.2003 on certain allegations. He replied to the same on 28.6.2003. From a reading of the show cause notice it is apparent that it pertains to certain events of the months of April and May 2003. Nothing further transpired thereupon. After reorganization of the State of Bihar, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the now State of Bihar. A fresh show cause notice has been issued to him on 11.2.2009. From the enclosure to the same it is more than apparent that it is in respect of the same allegations dated 25.6.2003 replied to by the petitioner on 28.6.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no justification for this belated show cause notice on the same charges after a period of over six years. The failure of the respondents to pass final orders after the cause shown 2 on 28.6.2009 leads to the irresistible conclusion that it was found to satisfaction and acceptable leading to dropping of the proceedings. Even otherwise relying on a Division Bench order reported in 2009(3) PLJR 861 as also the order of the Supreme Court in 2005(4) SCC 636, 2006(5) SCC 88 the submission is that such a belated proceedings on stale charges is not permissible. Learned counsel for the State while praying for time to file the counter affidavit very fairly acknowledges that after reorganization of the State of Bihar, the necessary records of the employee concerned have also been forwarded to the concerned State where the services have been allocated. Therefore, naturally the service records of the petitioner stands transmitted and are available with the respondents when they have passed the impugned order. This Court under Article 226 sits in exercise of judicial review of administrative action. If the administrator insists on acting in a manner contrary to law and passes an order initiating proceedings without any reference to the earlier notice issued and available in his records and hinders judicial review by its orders, this Court shall not give him the latitude and luxury for allowing him to file counter affidavit and then seek to explain his action before this Court. The exercise to be carried out by the administrator in his chamber cannot be shifted as a burden to this Court. 3 The order of punishment dated 20.7.2009 holding that the petitioner did not file his reply imposing stoppage of three increments of pay with non-cumulative effect is set aside. The respondents is given the liberty to proceed afresh if it so desires but in that event it shall have to proceed strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the discussions aforesaid inclusive of judicial pronouncements and decide the matter afresh after issuance of a fresh reasoned show cause notice and then proceed accordingly in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)