IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 3453 of 2005 RAM RAJ SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM BRIKSH SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-TRIGUN DEHRI, NEAR SEVA SADAN, P.S.-DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTRICT- ROHTAS ………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, SASARAM 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, AURANGABAD 6. DY. DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER AND INVESTIGATION DIVISION, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BHAGALPUR 7. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA ………………. RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner: Mr. Satish Chandra Jha-3, Adv. For the State: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, AC to SC-14 ----------- 06. 12.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is a Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department. Vide Order, contained in Memo No. 4916, dated 30.09.2003, issued by the Irrigation Department, he was placed under suspension and a Departmental Proceeding was also initiated against him by Order dated 17.12.2003, contained in Memo No. 6030. Both these Orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing this Writ Application on the ground that ignoring the 2 instructions of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and a Circular, bearing Memo No. 4698, dated 4th of April, 1960, the Departmental Proceeding has been initiated. Prior to initiation of Departmental Proceeding, the preliminary enquiry, issuing show- cause notice to the petitioner, should have been held and only after finding the fact that there are materials in support of the charges, the Departmental Proceeding should have been initiated. Without following the Government Circular and the instructions of the Chief Secretary, in a hurry, the suspension order was issued and the Departmental Proceeding was initiated. Initial prayer of the petitioner in the Writ Application was for quashing the order, initiating Departmental Proceeding as well as order of suspension. During the pendency of the Writ Application, the Departmental Proceeding was concluded, awarding punishment of censor for the year 2002-03, withholding of five annual increments with non-cumulative effect, non-payment of salary or any other allowance during the suspension period, except subsistence allowance. However, the period of suspension was directed to be counted for pension 3 and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. I. A. No. 3277 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner, making additional prayer for quashing the order, contained in Memo No. 908, dated 23.03.2005, whereby the Disciplinary Authority has awarded punishment without considering the enquiry report and the defence submitted by the petitioner. The punishment order, contained in Annexure-8, had been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that before passing the impugned punishment order, neither enquiry report nor second show-cause notice was served to the petitioner. The enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer disclosed that entire charge levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. The Enquiry Officer had found that the temporary advance amount given to the petitioner had duly been adjusted against the work done by him. The Enquiry Officer also recorded the finding that petitioner being Junior Engineer, was duty bound to comply the direction of the higher Authority, since he has to complete the work within time specified. Petitioner completed his work and vouchers were submitted by him well within time, which should have been adjusted by the higher 4 Authority. Subsequently, it was adjusted, but after some delay. In sum and substance, the charges for which a Departmental Proceeding has been initiated under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 were not found to be proved. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that since the Departmental Proceeding had been initiated under Rule 55, as such, the Authorities were duty bound to complete it, observing all procedures and formalities. The Disciplinary Authority in case of disagreement with the enquiry report, submitted by the Conducting Officer, was duty bound to issue second show-cause notice, showing reason for disagreement with the proposed punishment. Neither enquiry report was furnished nor a second show-cause notice, showing reason for disagreement with the enquiry report, as well as the punishment proposed to be imposed, were supplied to him. Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents in regard to the statements made in the Interlocutory Application. The Counter Affidavit is completely silent so far the 5 allegations made by the petitioner regarding non- furnishing of enquiry report and second show-cause notice are concerned. Simply, it has been stated that since minor punishment was awarded in the Departmental Proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, as such there was no legal requirement for issuing second show-cause notice to the petitioner. I fail to understand that how such statement could be made in the Counter Affidavit, when the law is very much settled on this point. In case, a Departmental Proceeding has been initiated under Rule 55 of the aforesaid Rules, all formalities and procedures has to be followed, even though the minor punishment is awarded. Considering the illegality, apparent, and the enquiry report, which exonerated the petitioner of all the charges, I find the impugned order, awarding punishment, contained in Memo No. 908, dated 23.03.2005, issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. Respondents are directed to make payment of entire arrears of 6 salary to the petitioner for the period of suspension and all other consequential benefits, for which he would have been entitled, if no punishment would be awarded to him. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)