IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6014 of 2007 Arun Kumar Sharma, son of late Shyam Chandra Prasad Singh, resident of village Bharthu P.O. Bharthu, P.S. Ghosi, District Jehanabad … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director (Administration)-cum- Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Bihar Secondary Education Office, Budha Marg, Patna- 800 001 4. The Director, Rashtriya Niyojan Karyakram, Nalanda, through the District Magistrate, Nalanda .. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State :Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, A.C. to AAG-14 02/ 21.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time, petitioner served as District Education Officer, Nalanda. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order, bearing Memo No. 204 dated 15.3.2007, passed by the Director, Primary Education –cum- Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Annexure-15 whereunder petitioner has been censured and his one increment withheld without cumulative effect. 2 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the impugned punishment order dated 15.3.2007, Annexure-15, the authorities have not considered his defence as was set out in his reply dated 31.7.2003, 5.10.2005,Annexures-14 and 14/1 whereunder he had categorically stated that the office order, bearing Memo No. 620 dated 30.5.2001, Annexure-6 was passed by him ignoramus of the order of the High Court referred to in the impugned order and no sooner petitioner learnt about the High Court order, he passed office order bearing Memo No. 1224 dated 2.10.2001, Annexure-9 recalling his earlier order dated 30.5.2001, Annexure-6. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in his show cause reply referred to above, petitioner owned up his mistake and had submitted that on account of being ignoramus of the High Court order, the order dated 30.5.2001, Annexure-6 was issued by him. 4. Perusal of the impugned punishment order does not indicate that defence of the petitioner has ever been considered by the authorities while 3 punishing him under the impugned order. 5. In the circumstances, I have no option but to quash the impugned punishment order dated 15.3.2007, Annexure-15, which is, accordingly, quashed with liberty to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they so desire. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)