IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.304 of 2010 Niraj Kumar Rukhaiyar son of Late Jamuna Prasad Rukhayar, presently residing at Flat No.122, Road No.2, Rajbanshi Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Town and District Patna …….Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Member, Board of Revenue, State of Bihar, Patna 3.Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ……..Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG X Mr. Harish Kumar, AC to AAG X _________ O r d e r 3 10.3.2011 The Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.1005 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The appellant filed C.W.J.C.No.1005 of 2008 for setting aside the order of punishment contained in memo no.2868 dated 9.10.2006 whereby one increment was stopped with cumulative effect and decision of payment of subsistence allowance was deferred till disposal of criminal case. 2 2. Before we take up the issues involved in the case and submissions advanced by the respective parties, it would be necessary to notice the relevant facts in some details. The Vigilance department in its preliminary enquiry prima facie found the involvement of many individuals who contrived with each other in securing recognition to Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed College, Katihar, a non-existent institution. In view of the vigilance report, an explanation was sought from the appellant and others vide memo no.749 dated 19.7.2001, who served as Assistant in the Human Resources Department from 1.8.1989 to 30.4.2005. The appellant was asked to explain as to why did he make a proposal for inspection of Institute when already a file relating to recognition of the Institute has been processed and is pending consideration of the authorities. The show cause also contained the allegations that the appellant even constituted a team for inspection and later on had also made a recommendation for recognition of the B.Ed institution. The appellant submitted his reply on 27.8.2001 denying the allegations contained in the memo dated 19.7.2001. The explanations was not found satisfactory and consequently charges were framed against the appellant on 24.1.2002 vide Annexure-5. The charge was that appellant 3 processed the proposal for fresh inspection of the institute and even proposed an inspecting team withholding the information that already a file relating to consideration of grant of recognition was pending before the higher authorities. The appellant in his reply dated 18.5.2002 contained in Annexure-5 denied the charges. The inquiry officer vide his report dated 14.7.2006 contained in Annexure-6 accepted his explanations holding that the charges are not fully proved. 3. The disciplinary authority did not accept the findings of the inquiry officer and differed with it on two grounds indicated herein below and consequently issued show cause dated 12.7.2006, as to why suitable punishment be not accorded to him. The first ground was based on the facts that materials on record would show that the appellant sat over the inspection report for a month. The second reason for differing was founded on the ground that instead of trying to locate earlier file relating to inspection and recognition, the appellant constituted an inspection team and forwarded note for inspection of the institution. 4. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause on 25.7.2006 which is annexed as Annexure-8 to this appeal. The disciplinary authority on consideration of show cause 4 reply came to the finding that the appellant has not been able to meet the grounds mentioned therein and inflicted two punishments on the appellant vide memo no.2868 dated 9.10.2006. The first punishment was stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and the second punishment was in terms of deferring payment of subsistence allowance till conclusion of the criminal trial. An appeal No.2 of 2007 preferred against the order of punishment before the Member, Board of Revenue was too dismissed on 17.6.2007 leading to the filing of the writ application. The learned Single Judge only partially allowed the writ application and directed the authorities to decide the subsistence allowance payable to the appellant within two months and not to defer the decision till conclusion of the criminal trial. However, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the order of punishment inflicting withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. 5. The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal has prayed for setting aside the order of learned Single Judge as well as learned Member. Board of Revenue, confirming punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect by the disciplinary authority. The appellant submits that there was no reason for disciplinary authority to differ with the findings and 5 conclusion of the inquiry officer, acquitting him of the charges. The appellant submits that previous inspection file was not lying in his office rather the same was sent to the office of the Director, Secondary Education and as such it was not possible for him to produce the file. He submits that he had merely put up a proposal for inspection of Institution by forming a team. The appellant denies the allegation that he recommended for recognition of the institution. He submits that even assuming that he did not process and sat over inspection report for a month, the same in no manner caused any prejudice to the department. He also submits that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the respondents were not obliged to deal with every point set out in the reply. The appellant in this regard relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors Vs B. Karunakar & Ors, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727. 6. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned A.A.G.X states that the appellant is a part of racket and has played an obnoxious role leading to the grant of recognition to a fake B.Ed institution. He submits that the appellant had not stated in his note that earlier an inspection of the institution had already been made and the matter relating to its recognition is pending 6 consideration of the higher authorities. He submits that the appellant was only eager for a fresh inspection of the institution for which he had even proposed a team. He submits that the appellant has not been able to meet the reasonings on the basis of which the disciplinary authority differed with the report of the Inquiry Officer. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. On the basis of preliminary vigilance enquiry, an explanation was sought from the appellant regarding his alleged misconduct in not bringing to notice the existence of an earlier file relating to recognition of the institution. The explanation offered by the appellant was not found satisfactory and a regular disciplinary proceeding was instituted and specific charges were framed against him. The inquiry officer found that the charges were not proved against the appellant. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the conclusion of the inquiry officer and found that there are materials for indicting the appellant. He found two reasons for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. He found that the appellant sat over the inspection report for a month and did not forward the same to the superior authority. Secondly, the appellant instead of tracing the earlier file 7 regarding previous inspection, was more interested in constituting a team for fresh inspection. He found that the appellant was given another show cause to meet the reasoning of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority found that the appellant has not been able to give any justifiable explanation in support of his defence and has inflicted punishment withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The second punishment relating to withholding of consideration of subsistence allowance till the disposal of criminal trial was set aside by the learned Single Judge with a direction to consider the same within two months. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant has not been able to point out any procedural defect in the instant proceeding. We too find that there has not been any procedural defect and the appellant has failed to meet the reasonings given by the disciplinary authority in differing with the view of inquiry officer. The appellant has not been able to deny that he did not sit over the file for a month. The appellant could not controvert the charge that he did not draw the attention of authorities regarding the previous inspection of the Institute while hurrying a proposal for fresh inspection. The appellant did not make any efforts to locate the file in question. The materials on 8 KHAN record amply showed that the institution was fake and existed only on papers. We find that both the disciplinary authority as well as the learned Single Judge has considered all relevant aspects involved in the proceeding. The order of the disciplinary authority displays due application of mind and has addresses all relevant points raised by the appellant. As such the decision rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) would have no application in facts of this case and would not be of any help to the appellant. 8. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (S.K. Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J)