IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.765 of 2008 RAM TAWAKYA SINGH, Son of Late Shyam Narayan Singh, resident of C/4, East Gardiner Road, P.S. Kotwali Town and District-Patna ---------- Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 04-12-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner in a Departmental proceeding has been visited with a minor punishment of ‘Censure’ and stoppage of two increments for three years and that ‘nothing beyond subsistence allowance’ was payable for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority being the same, the order of the appellate authority dated 20.4.2007 is vitiated. He relies upon a Judgment reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 253(SC) ( Amar Nath Chaudhary Vrs.Braithwaite& co. Ltd. & Ors. Counsel for the State submits that the disciplinary authority after considering the cause shown in pursuance of the enquiry report before punishment exonerated the petitioner of one charge from three upheld by the appellate authority also. The petitioner on that ground has not been prejudiced in any manner. 2 In the case of Amar Nath Chaudhary ( Supra) the disciplinary authority who passed the order of punishment also sat in the Board constituting the appellate authority. The Board dismissed the appeal by a non-speaking order. The Single Judge found procedural irregularities in the departmental proceeding and set aside the punishment. The appeal filed by employer was allowed. The delinquent then moved the Apex Court. The facts in the present case are distinguishable as there are no allegations of procedural infirmity in the departmental proceedings. Moreover, the order of the appellate authority is speaking in nature displaying application of mind to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. The Supreme Court in 2001 (6) SCC 392 (State of U.P. Versus Harendra Arora and another) has cautioned with regard to the mechanical approach in setting aside orders in departmental proceeding for alleged procedural non– compliance , unless prejudice is stated to have been caused applying the useless formality theory holding at paragraph no. 8 and 13 that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the alleged procedural error would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and punishment, it should not interfere. The 3 Apex Court regretted the mechanical setting aside of orders on such ground simplicitor. It further held that the principle of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice was extremely relevant before the Court interfered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court of any procedural infirmity committed in the departmental proceedings or the prejudice caused to him by the final order dated 20.4.2007. In any event, the punishment imposed is minor in nature. The fair deal held out to the petitioner is more than apparent when the disciplinary authority absolved the petitioner of one of the charges also upheld by the appellate authority. In absence of any grounds urged of the nature of prejudice caused, in the entirety of the matter to the mind of this Court. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. NKS/- ( Navin Sinha, J)