Letters Patent Appeal No.1503 OF 1999 ******* Against the order dated 29.10.1999 passed in CWJC no.9229 of 1998. ******* BIJOY KUMAR------------------Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS---Respondents For the Appellant: M/ D.K. Sinha & Atul Chandra For the State : Mr. Shashi Kant Singh, JC to GA 6. ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, JJ. Appellant, a Headmaster of a Middle School was dismissed by an order dated 15th September, 1994 passed while concluding a disciplinary proceeding. In the charge sheet, which was enquired in the disciplinary proceeding, it was alleged that the appellant has withdrawn provident 2 fund amounts belonging to six teachers of the said School but did not disburse the same. On appeal the appellate authority directed the punishment order to be kept in abeyance with a further direction upon the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter after serving a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant. The enquiry report was then served upon the appellant. The appellant, however, did not file a representation against the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority then passed the final order dated 04th July, 1995 and thereby once again dismissed the appellant from service. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred which having been dismissed the appellant filed a writ petition registered as CWJC no. 2998 of 1996. When the writ petition was heard, abandoning 3 all other points taken in the writ petition, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the nature and quantum of punishment should be re- considered. In the light of such submission the Court by its order dated 24th July, 2007, while disposed of the said writ petition, remitted back the matter to the appellate authority with a direction upon it to reconsider the question of nature and quantum of punishment. The appellate authority then decided once again to dismiss the appellant by its order dated 29th December, 1997. After having had failed in a review petition, the appellant re-approached this court by filing the writ petition, which having been dismissed by the order under appeal, the appellant has preferred this letters patent appeal. 4 2. The learned single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition, held that all matters pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding stood concluded by the order of this court dated 24th July, 1997 passed in the first writ petition except the nature and quantum of punishment. The learned Judge felt that having regard to the finality pertaining to other aspects of the disciplinary proceedings, the Court in the writ petition can only consider the question of nature and quantum of punishment, but it cannot substitute the same; while it has authority to direct reconsideration. The learned Judge felt that having had directed reconsideration once, there is no scope of directing reconsideration once again. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 5 disciplinary authority on remand by the appellate authority as well as the appellate authority on remand by this court did not give the appellant an opportunity of being heard and that vitiates the order of punishment. 4. After alteration of Article 311 of the Constitution of India there is no scope of giving any second show cause. That being the position, there is not right of a Government employee to have a hearing at the time of awarding punishment. 5. The quantum of punishment as awarded, being dismissal, suggests that the charge, as has been proved, is such that it is no longer possible for the Government to keep the appellant in its employment. In order to interfere with such an order of punishment one is 6 required to opine on the materials on record that the facts and circumstances of the case do not suggest requirement of such separation. In the instant case, the charge, as stands proved and as reflected in the enquiry report, is that the appellant is guilty of embezzlement of fund kept in the custody of the State by six other employees of the State. If such a charge stands proved a court of equity even if it has power to do so, it would not interfere with the punishment order. 6. As a result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.) Patna High Court, The 23rd June, 2008. AAhmad/(NAFR) 7