IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14587 of 2006 PARAMHANS KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE SURENDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF T/553, LOHIA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER, PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ganesh Prasad Sigh, Sr. Advocate, M/S. Dhananjay Kumar, Sunil Prasad, Niraj Raj & Arvind Prasad Singh For the Respondents :- Mr. Girijesh, A.C. to AAG III. ------ 3 28/06/2010 Petitioner was posted as an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes at Gopalganj sometime in the year 2002. He received a letter from a Company known as U.B. Distilleries Limited. This is the letter on which rest of the story unfolds. Annexure-1 is the letter of the Company addressed to the petitioner which innocuously states that the Company has paid the admitted tax for the years 2000-01 as well as 2001-02. Request was made to the department to issue a letter showing their payment position. The petitioner is supposed to have issued letter no. 247 dated 16.3.2002 - 2 - stating the details of payment made in the year 2000-01 as well as 2001-02. That letter is annexure-2 to the writ application. Besides giving details of payment, last line categorically states that from the period April 2001 to January 2002 there are no dues of the petitioner. This letter issued by the petitioner as an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was produced by the liquor Company before the District Magistrate and pressed into service as a proof of no dues. The Collector of the district being the licensing authority issued a provisional renewal of license on the basis of annexure-2 of which admittedly the petitioner was the author. Subsequently it emerged that the letter issued by the petitioner was used to draw advantage of renewal of license by the Company by suppressing the vital fact that more than 55 crores of rupees of sales tax was outstanding against the Company. No liquor Company was entitled to renewal of its license if all the dues outstanding against it were not cleared and paid before the license is renewed. Letter of the petitioner, therefore, was treated as a favour or help extended to the liquor Company for obtaining the renewal and the - 3 - respondents decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against him first by issuing a show cause to him and secondly by drawing up a set of charges, on not being satisfied with the explanation of his. The Commissioner of departmental enquiry conducted proceeding and the finding of the enquiry officer is Annexure-10 to the writ application. Petitioner was held guilty by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the disciplinary authority issued him a second show cause. Not satisfied by the explanation an order of punishment was passed which is annexure-11 dated 16.11.2005. Three kinds of punishment have come to be awarded as would be evident from a reading of Annexure-11. Thereafter the petitioner had approached this High Court in yet another writ application which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 15002 of 2005. The Court does not have the benefit of looking into the writ application as a whole but it seems that after some submissions and arguments, the petitioner tactfully withdrew the writ application with liberty to approach the department on the ground that similarly situated other delinquents have got away lightly vis-à-vis the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. This fact would be - 4 - evident from a reading of Annexure-14 to the writ application. The petitioner approached the respondent Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the department by virtue of Annexure-15 but the authorities by a cryptic order has rejected his request for re-consideration on the quantum of punishment. This is the second visit of the petitioner, therefore, on the issue before the High Court. One aspect of the submissions made at the Bar by the Senior Counsel representing the petitioner must be readily accepted by this Court since there does not seem to be much of dispute on the legal propositions. The matter stands settled by atleast two decisions of this Court which are Division Bench decisions and, therefore, those aspects must fairly accrue to the petitioner. His submission is that in so far as first punishment is concerned, his stand is that the respondent authorities did not fulfill the requirements of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code inasmuch as no show cause or opportunity was given to the petitioner before imposing punishment that the petitioner would not be entitled to any other salary or benefits for the period of suspension except - 5 - payment of subsistence allowance. The relevant decisions are in the case of Sri Mahabir Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1988 PLJR, 82 and the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others reported in 2003(4) PLJR, 68. The law being what it is, the first punishment imposed upon the petitioner is hereby interfered with and quashed but the respondent authorities are directed to comply with the requirements of rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code in view of the ratios of the two Division Bench decisions. They will be well advised to expedite the matter on the issue since the petitioner has been suffering or has faced departmental proceeding over many a years and the issue has not come to rest even till 2010. The second punishment with regard to reversion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Commissioner to the post of Commercial Taxes Officer and his submission about discrimination vis-à-vis other employees similarly charged, this aspect of the matter is being allowed to be raised in the light of the observation of the learned Single Judge which is Annexure-14 to the writ application to the extent that the - 6 - communication received by the petitioner on the issue dated 8.11.2006 to say the least, is far from satisfactory. It is a cryptic not even a telegraphic language by virtue of which the request of the petitioner has been rejected. Obviously, either there is no application of mind or least application of mind by the respondent authorities on this aspect of the matter. Petitioner has annexed some extract of the file notings but the Court would not like to observe or comment on those notings because noting is only an opinion rendered at various levels in the beaurocratic hierarchy. The Court is concerned with the final decision which is the order passed and notified. Whatever has come on record as Annexure-15-A does not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court. The Court has no mechanism, by reading of the same, to understand the mind or the reasons for the decision by the authority. The reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner with regard to quantum of punishment and the parity which he was seeking with regard to other employees is not available. The stand of the State on the issue reflected in the counter affidavit does not improve the situation either as the submissions raised by the learned Senior Counsel in the writ application is not - 7 - answered. Therefore, the law does weigh in favour of the petitioner and to that extent which is indicated by the Court, the writ application of the petitioner succeeds. As already indicated above, the first punishment of withholding of payment of salary and other allowances for the period of suspension stands quashed. Matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authorities for compliance of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Annexure-15-A also stands quashed. The respondent authorities would be well advised to give their opinion in the order by virtue of which the petitioner cannot be extended parity in terms of punishment vis-à-vis others. No other indulgence is required in the matter. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)