IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11904 of 2006 SHRAWAN KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF SRI SATANAND SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. DERHGAWON, DISTRICT – GAZIPUR, (U.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, R.E.O. WORK DIVISION, SARAIKELA, KHARSAWAN, JHARKHAND. ………………. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-ADDL. COMMISSIONER –CUM- SPECIAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS CIRCLE, DARBHANGA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS DIVISION, BEGUSARAI. 7. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BEGUSARAI. ………….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 17.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. A minor punishment of recovery of Rs.3,68,818/- and non-consideration for any promotion for two years were awarded to the petitioner in a departmental proceeding initiated against him vide order contained in Memo NO. 2058(E) dated 6.3.1998 issued by Engineer-in-chief – cum- Additional Commissioner –cum- Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. This order has been challenged by the 2 petitioner on the ground that the proceeding was an ex-parte proceeding. The departmental proceeding was not conducted properly, even the enquiry report was not furnished to him and punishment has been awarded by the impugned order. The Respondent did not communicate this punishment order to the petitioner till 2006. He came to know about this order through Engineer, against whom also by the common order show cause notice had been issued. In the counter affidavit of the State the ground taken by the Respondents for awarding punishment without initiating a proper Departmental Proceeding is that only minor punishment was awarded to the petitioner. For awarding such penalty, initiation of departmental proceeding is not required, as per the Rules under Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He submitted his explanation and after consideration of show cause the order of punishment has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner in reply to it has stated that by a common order show cause notice had 3 been issued to the petitioner and other Engineers. Since they were communicated the punishment order in the year 1998 itself the order was challenged by them by filing writ applications. The punishment orders in their cases were quashed, considering the non-observance of procedure for holding a departmental enquiry. In these cases, the punishment orders were quashed holding that even for a minor punishment under Rule 55A, charged employee is to be communicated with the evidences and the order should be based on evidence. No specific evidence was cited to bring home the charges. The petitioner was unaware that on receipt of reply to show cause notice authorities may punish him. Even the act of omission and commission, on the part of the petitioner, were not cited separately in the so called notice dated 21.6.1995. In this circumstance, any punishment awarded to the petitioner is illegal. The punishment order has been passed against the petitioner on the basis of common show cause notice. Similar punishment order has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court, considering its’ 4 ex-parte nature. The petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. The impugned order contained in Memo No. 2058(E) dated 6.3.1998 issued under the signature of Engineer-in-chief –cum-Additional Commissioner –cum- Special Secretary, Road Construction Department (Annexure-3) is quashed. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)