IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7658 of 2011 Sukhlal Choudhary, son of late Baleshwar Choudhary, resident of Village – Manglichak, Police Station : Parsa Bazar, District – Patna. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Design cum Mechanical Circle, Ganga Bridge Project, Patna. 3. The Technical Advisor cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Design cum Mechanical Circle, Ganga Bridge Project, Road Construction Department, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Patna. ----------- 02. 11.8.2011 After due enquiry two punishment orders came to visit the petitioner in terms of Annexure-2. One was that he will not be entitled to any payment of salary except for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the other was withholding of three increments. Writ has been filed by the petitioner making a prayer that he is entitled to payment of salary for the period 17.4.2008 to 14.7.2008 including three annual increments of salary in light of the order which has been passed by the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project, Patna in terms of Annexure-3, which is dated 29.7.2009. Contention of the petitioner is that if the petitioner’s punishment was set aside or overlooked by Shri Jay Karan Pd Sinha, Superintending Engineer vide his letter dated 29.7.2009, there is nothing left in terms of the order of punishment and petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. There are two facts glaring in nature – (i) that this order has been passed by Shri Jay Karan Pd Sinha, the then 2 Superintending Engineer on the verge of his retirement, which was on 31.3.2009 and (ii) that this order has not been passed in the capacity as the appellate authority in appeal having been filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment. What business the said Superintending Engineer had in passing such an order is not fully understood by the Court. In fact, in view of the stand taken by the State explaining the circumstances which compelled them to recall this order holding it to be illegal, what was done by Shri Jay Karan Pd Sinha was nothing but a serious case of omission and commission, if not colourable exercise of power, committed in this regard. In view of the stand taken by the State coupled with the order contained in Annexure E/1 dated 21.7.2011, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ application. However, a direction is issued upon the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar that taking cognizance of the notification contained in Annexure-E/1 which is office order No.96 dated 21.7.2011 issued by the new Superintending Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project, Patna, he shall order a departmental proceeding in exercise of power under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules against Shri Jay Karan Pd Sinha. If the outcome of such an enquiry establishes the guilt of the petitioner, appropriate punishment must be awarded. The court expects the exercise will be carried out by the Principal Secretary within the shortest possible time. 3 A copy of the order should be handed over to the Government Advocate-I for its communication immediately to the Principal Secretary. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)