IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.807 of 2002 UPENDRA KUMAR TIWARY, SON OF SHRI DEONATH TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASAULI, POLICE STATION PANAPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN AT PRESENT ASSISTANT ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES BIHAR, PATNA. …… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER TO GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, (INTERNAL VIGILANCE) WING TO GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA. ……. Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Dharnidhar Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, J.C. to A.A.G.-9. ----------- 3 21.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 20.3.2001 contained in Annexure-5 whereby in a proceeding under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, he has been awarded the punishments of censure for the year 1991-92, stoppage on promotion for 7 years and stoppage of three annual increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 28.6.2001 whereby the petitioner was informed that his appeal has been rejected at the level of the State Government On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that a Flying Squad made an inspection of some works and made adverse - 2 - report. The work related to Irrigation division, Garahi where the petitioner was posted on 5.2.1992 but the work relating to allegation no. 6 in respect of pitch road above Garahi embankment was initiated before petitioner’s joining at Garahi as would appear from the report of the Flying Squad contained in Annexure-3. It was further submitted that the report further discloses that in respect of item no. 6, the thickness of the road even after more than five years of construction was found to be in accordance with the specification and only on eye estimate, an allegation was made that the work of pre-mixing did not appear to be in accordance with the specifications. Lastly, it was submitted that petitioner pointed out all the aforesaid facts including the fact that at the relevant time, when measurement was made and major part of the payment was done, the petitioner was not posted at Garahi but in spite of his show cause, he was punished by the impugned order which refers to petitioner’s show cause in only one sentence and rejects the same by holding that in spite of the representation, the charges were found proved. Similar submissions were advanced in respect of the Annexure-7 that the appeal has been dismissed without due application to the facts mentioned by the petitioner in his show cause and memorandum of appeal. In law, minor punishments can be awarded without holding a detailed disciplinary proceeding and inquiry. However for inflicting even minor punishments on the basis of an - 3 - opportunity to show cause, the orders and the reports must justify the award of punishment and show that defence of the delinquent was given proper consideration. In this case, it is found that the allegations were general in nature, not directed against the petitioner in particular and in the impugned order, petitioner has been held liable only for making a recommendation for payment for the pre-mixing work in respect to pitch road on the Garahi embankment but the show cause notice or the report of the Flying Squad did not contain any charge that the petitioner’s action in recommending for payment was examined or was found to suffer from any irregularity. It is clear that the finding against the petitioner relates to a charge which was not reflected by the show cause notice given to him. It is further found that the entire allegations and the finding against the petitioner are vague and not proved by materials on record including the report of the Flying Squad. The impugned order contained in Annexure-5 as well as the appellate order are also found to be bad in law on account of having being passed without proper application of mind. In view of the aforesaid discussion and mainly in view of the finding that the petitioner has been found guilty of an allegation which was not a part of the show cause notice and there is no definite allegation against the petitioner, order awarding punishment to the petitioner as well as the appellate - 4 - order are found to be bad in law and they are accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. pkj (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)