IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10598 of 2007 BINOD KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAM SAGAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – NEW COLONY, DANDIBAGH, POLICE STATION – CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT – GAYA. …….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE (MAGADH DIVISION), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SRI AUGUST TIGGA, SON OF LATE JOHN TIGGA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – TETTAR TOLI, P.S. DUMRI, DISTRICT – GUMLA (JHARKHAND), AT PRESENT DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR (SUSPENDED), DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, GAYA, VIKASH BHAWAN, COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, GAYA. 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, GAYA SADAR, BODH GAYA, DISTRICT – GAYA. ………….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : - Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. A. Amanullah, GA 4 Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to GA 4. 02/ 05.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner while posted as Cashier in the office of District Agriculture Officer, Gaya, he alleged to have withdrawn Rs. 2,30,000/- in order to meet his personal expenses. For deceitful withdrawal of huge amount by the petitioner for his personal expenses he was questioned by the superior authorities. Petitioner admitted that for the treatment of his wife he has withdrawn this amount as loan and 2 that will be repaid by him. Despite of this admission by the petitioner and assurance given by him for refunding the amount, money was not refunded. The amount which had been withdrawn by the petitioner was meant for Macromode scheme. On detecting such serious financial irregularities committed by the petitioner in breach of treasury code and embezzlement of Govt. money and diversion of fund, departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The charges related to commission of serious financial irregularities in breach of treasury code and embezzlement of Govt. money, diversion of fund as well as negligent of duty. Petitioner admitted in his show cause that he has taken money, but gave assurance of refunding the amount. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding. He was given full opportunity to defend his case and finally the impugned order contained in Memo No. 13(MO) dated 25.6.2007 was passed, whereby punishment of reversion from the post of Class III to Class IV post with immediate effect as well as non-payment of salary for the period of suspension, except the 3 subsistence allowance, was passed. The impugned order contained in Memo No. 13(MO) dated 25.6.2007 is under challenge in the present writ application on the ground that several punishments have been awarded for a single charge relating to withdrawal of Govt. money. It has also been stated that the punishment order had already been passed by the Respondents vide order contained in Memo No. 1075 dated 4.9.2006 (Annexure-4), as such there was no reason for passing another order of punishment vide Annexure-1. So far order contained in Annexure-4 is concerned, on perusal of which, it transpires that it was not an order passed in the departmental proceeding rather it was a routine order issued in favour of the petitioner as reminder for refunding Rs.2,30,000/-. Petitioner himself had admitted that this amount has been taken as loan by him and he will refund this amount. Since the petitioner despite assurance was not refunding the money, time to time reminder was being issued to the petitioner and Annexure-4 is also one of such order passed in chain. 4 Two punishments were awarded to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding; (i) reversion from the post of Clerk to the post of Class IV employee; and (ii) non-payment of salary for the period of suspension. So far first punishment is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere, as petitioner was given full opportunity for defending him, this punishment order has been awarded finding the charge to be proved. It needs no interference. So far second punishment, it has been contended by the petitioner that punishment has been awarded in violation of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. In case it was decided that punishment regarding non-payment of salary for the period of suspension is to be passed, the Respondents should have observed mandatory provision of issuance of notice to the petitioner as provided under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Since, it was not done, the punishment awarded regarding non-payment of salary for the period of suspension is completely in violation of Rule 97 of Bihar Service Code as well as in violation of rule of natural justice. 5 I find substance in the submission made by the petitioner for the reason that this issue has been settled in many of the decisions passed by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1988, P.L.J.R. 82 (Shri Mahabir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others) and 2003(4) P.L.J.R. 68 (Pramod Kumar Vs. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others). On these reported decisions the order of punishment regarding non-payment of salary for the period of suspension was quashed for the reason that the pre- condition mandated in Rule 97 was not followed. Accordingly, the part of the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 13(MO) dated 25.6.2007 (Annexure-1), whereby the punishment regarding non-payment of salary for the period of suspension has been awarded, is quashed. Rest of the punishment will remain intact. For deciding this issue again the matter the remitted back to the Joint Director, Agriculture, Magadh Division (Respondent No. 4), who will reconsider the matter and pass necessary orders in compliance of Rule 97 of Bihar 6 Service Code, within eight weeks from the date of production/communication of the order. This application is disposed of. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)