IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10949 of 2006 JAGESHWAR PRASAD, son of late Etavari Mahato, resident of Masaudhi ( Near- S.D.O. Court), P.S. Masaudhi, District- Patna. …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through its secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer (South), Tubewell Section, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Circle, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer-cum-Enquiry Officer, Tubewell Circle, Arrah. 7. The Executive Engineer, Tubewell Circle, Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, Central Workshop Development and Training Institute, Patna. 9. The Assistant Engineer, Tubewell Store Division, Patna. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar-2, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shambhu Nath, AC to GP X 4. 02.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed an order of punishment dated 12.12.2005 primarily on the ground that the same is an order inflicting major punishment, i.e. stoppage of two increments with cumulative 2 effect but no departmental proceeding was ever conducted against him. It is submitted that the whole thing was decided on the basis of a show-cause reply obtained from the petitioner. This part of the stand taken by the petitioner categorically in paragraph 15 has been somewhat contradicted but ultimately on a conjoint reading of paragraphs 13 and 15 of the writ application as also the recitals made in the enquiry report it becomes clear that the enquiry officer had only looked into the explanation submitted by the petitioner and went to hold the petitioner guilty. That however cannot be the scope and manner of a departmental proceeding, specially when the petitioner had categorically denied the charges. Counsel for the petitioner went a step ahead to contend that the charges framed against him would not amount to misconduct inasmuch as he was holding a post of helper and whatsoever the charges were brought against him, was for dereliction of duty in capacity of 3 Chaukidar. This Court would find that the petitioner does not dispute that on the fateful day when the occurrence of dacoity had taken place, the petitioner was on duty in the night shift and had immediately filed a report. Once the petitioner was on duty in the night shift and certain loss of government article/ revenue on account of dacoity had occurred, it cannot be said that employer/government will be denuded of its power in initiating a departmental proceeding for dereliction of duty. Whether the petitioner was holding the post of Chaukidar or a helper will not change the nature of charge of negligence/dereliction of duty against the petitioner in not taking effective measures for safeguarding the government property. In that view of the matter, the plea of the petitioner that charges framed against him would not amount to misconduct must be and is hereby rejected. As recorded above, this Court has found that no proper departmental 4 proceeding was conducted in true sense and therefore while quashing the impugned order dated 12.12.2005, this Court would remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority who shall now appoint an enquiry officer and allow the petitioner to place his evidence in defence after the department would adduce evidence in support of his charge. It is expected that enquiry officer would conclude the enquiry and submit his report within a period of four months from the date of initiation of such enquiry. It goes without saying that the petitioner must co-operate and if the petitioner fails to do so, enquiry officer may proceed ex parte. The final order depending on the outcome of enquiry report must be passed within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is however made clear that any financial benefits including restoration of two increments would await and abide by the result of remitted departmental proceeding. With the aforementioned 5 observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)