IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17906 of 2009 1. RAMROOP SINGH S/O LATE JANKI SINGH R/O MOH- CHANKYA NAGAR, KUMHARAR, P.O-BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, P.S- AGAM KUAN, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1 THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, P.O GPO, PATNA, DISTT- PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, PERSONAL 7 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PO GPO, DISTT- PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, STATISTICS & PLANNING, DIRECTORATE GOVT.OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PO GPO, DISTT=- PATNA 5. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT P.O +P.S+TOWN- HAZIPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI FOR THE PETITIONER : - MR. RAJENDRA PD. SINGH, SR. ADVOCATE MR. RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. MUKESH KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. ONKAR KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. NAVJOT ISHU, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE ; - MR. GAUTAM KUMAR YADAV, AC TO SC IV. ----------- 04/ 28.06.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner has filed writ application for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 11525 dated 27.10.2008 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, inflicting punishment of censor for 1993-94 and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Further prayer was for quashing of order dated 29.7.2009, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and also the order contained in Memo No. 10680 - 2 - dated 30.10.2009 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar Government Servant (C.C.A.) Rules, 2005. The review application had been filed by the petitioner in the light of order dated 3.9.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11275 of 2009. The writ application was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order of punishment awarded in a departmental proceeding after more than 15 years of the initiation of the departmental proceeding on the ground that charges have become stale and need to be dropped. The facts as revealed in the writ application is that the petitioner while posted as Executive Magistrate, Vaishali, was notified for additional charges of District Statistical Officer and the Welfare Officer vide Annexure – 3 and 4 to the writ application. On 27.5.1993, surprise inspection was made by the Senior Joint Director, Statistics and Evaluation of the Statistics Directorate, Patna, and 13 employees were found absent. The petitioner, being in- charge District Statistical Officer was asked to submit show cause and also directed that till date there is direction from - 3 - the Directorate, absentee employees will not be paid their salary. Petitioner’s case is that he submitted his explanation. Since there was no further direction, he anticipated as acceptance of his explanation and made payment of salary to absentee employees. This was treated as disobedience and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year, 1993, by framing and furnishing charges and he submitted his show cause. Subsequent to that, for 10 years, departmental proceeding remained closed. In the year, 2003, charges were re-framed with a direction to submit show cause. Petitioner submitted show cause, but for fifteen years, there was no action. Suddenly, in the year, 2008 order was passed awarding minor punishment. An appeal, preferred against punishment order was rejected. Review application filed, in the light of direction in the Writ application, has also been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders stating that since the departmental proceeding had been initiated under Rule 17(2) of the C.C.A. Rules, as such minor or major punishment could - 4 - have been awarded only by following the procedure, provided under the Rule. After 15 years of initiation the departmental proceeding, even minor punishment could not have been imposed, unless charges were proved, assigning proper opportunity to the petitioner. There being an admission in para 8 of the counter affidavit that proceeding was initiated under Rule 17(2) of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 2005, non-observance of procedure, is a serious illegality and it cannot be ignored simply because minor punishment of censure and stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect has been awarded. Admittedly, this is an apparent illegality, as the proceeding initiated under Rule 17(2) must have been concluded following the procedure. Since it was not done, entire proceeding as well as the order of punishment is illegal and fit to be quashed. The Appellate Authority, failed to consider the apparent and obvious illegality. Even the Review application filed by the petitioner on the direction of the Writ Court has been dismissed without considering the legal aspect, as well as observation made by the Writ Court. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out - 5 - that in case it is presumed that proceeding was initiated under Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules, then on consideration of show cause, final order should have been passed in the year, 1993 itself. After 15 years, even minor punishment of censure could not have been awarded for a stab charge. Since, it was not done, after 15 years there was no reason for awarding any punishment without following the procedure, as departmental proceeding was initiated under Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules. On consideration of all these facts, I find that entire departmental proceeding and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is completely illegal. Accordingly, the order awarding punishment, the appellate order and the order rejecting Review application dated 27.10.2008, 29.7.2009 and 30.10.2009, respectively, are quashed. Interlocutory Application No. 2245 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner, for amending the prayer in the main writ application. The additional amended prayer is for a direction to the respondents-State for considering his case for promotion on the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 22.2.2010 i.e. the date since the juniors to the petitioner - 6 - have been granted promotion in the cadre of Joint Secretary in pay scale of Rs. 37,400 – 67,000/- , Grade Pay Rs.8,700/. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional prayer has been made for the reason that on account of order of punishment petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion. In case of quashing of the punishment order, the amended relief will be a consequential relief, to the relief prayed in the writ application. Petitioner’s case of promotion has not been considered simply because of punishment awarded in the departmental proceeding. Since punishment order is being quashed, the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner have been allowed this benefit. Interlocutory application as well as the writ application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)