IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5781 of 2007 SHEO BALAK KUMAR, SON OF LATE BHIKARI PASWAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA POSTAL PARK, INDIRA NAGAR, ROAD NO.2/E, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. UNDER SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. For the petitioner : M/s S.P. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Shanti Pratap, Arvind Kr. Verma, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Accountant General : Mr. P.K. Rajgrihiyar, Advocate. ----------------- 02. 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Acting District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order bearing letter no.11716 dated 21.11.2006, Annexure- 1 whereunder 25% pension of the petitioner has been withheld by resorting to the provisions of Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules. Petitioner was earlier served with memo of charge with reference to the allegations levelled against him by the District Magistrate, Sheohar under Memo No.26 dated 2 18.01.2001 that he issued appointment letter nos. 69, 70, 71 dated 26.11.2000 appointing 78 candidate peons on different Class-IV post in the collectorate and attached offices without the approval of the Appointment Committee. He is also alleged to have appointed four persons as daily wage earners on 4.12.2000 violating the instructions of the Personnel Department contained in circular letter nos.7639, 5840 dated 11.06.1986, 18.02.1993. Third charge levelled against him is that he did not return the furniture and other articles given to him while he served as Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi. 3. Having received memo of charge petitioner submitted his reply disputing the three charges levelled against him. Against charge no.1 it was submitted that panel of the candidate peon and others for appointment against Class IV post was prepared by the earlier District Magistrate, namely, M/s Atis Chandra, Harihar Choudhary and for approval of the same he had called the meeting of the appointment committee, which could not be held for 3 want of quorum. The subordinate employee serving in the collectorate, however, obtained his signature on the appointment letter. Against charge no.2 petitioner submitted that he had not made any appointment on daily wage basis violating the Government instructions contained in circular letter dated 11.06.1986, 18.02.1993. Against charge no.3 petitioner submitted that value of the articles amounting to Rs.17625/- was deposited in the treasury. 4. The Enquiry Officer having considered the written defence of the petitioner held that charge no.1 is proved, charge no.2 is not proved, charge no.3 is partially proved. In connection with charge no.1 the Enquiry Officer held that appointment letters were issued under the signature of the petitioner who failed to prove that his signature on the appointment letter was fraudulently obtained. As against charge no.3 the Enquiry Officer found that petitioner deposited the value of the articles amounting to Rs.17625/- and taking into account the fact that value of articles has been deposited, the Enquiry Officer 4 held that effect of charge no.3 is considerably reduced and the charge is partially proved. 5. Aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer was served on the petitioner under letter dated 24th December, 2005, Annexure-15 asking him to submit his second show cause reply, which the petitioner has submitted on 21.01.2006, Annexure-16 again reiterating that when he took charge of District Magistrate, Sheohar proposal for appointment of Class IV post was placed before him and he had convened meeting of the selection committee on 28.11.2000 but the meeting of the Selection Committee could not be held for want of quorum. In the second show cause reply petitioner also pointed out that his signature on the appointment letter nos.69, 70, 71 dated 26.11.2000 was obtained by the Nazarat Deputy Collector, Sri Id Mohammad and Nazir Babu Lal Choudhary fraudulently. In the second show cause reply petitioner further submitted that the beneficiaries of the three appointment letters bearing Memo Nos.69, 70, 71 dated 26.11.2000 later moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13412 of 2000 for 5 giving effect to the three appointment letters and to accept the joining of the appointees. C.W.J.C. No.13412 of 2000 was disposed of under order dated 17.5.2004 directing the District Magistrate, Sheohar to fill up the posts from those who were the beneficiaries of the appointment letter nos.69, 70, 71 dated 26.11.2000 as there was not illegality and irregularity found in the panel dated 5.11.2000 on the basis of which the three appointment letters were issued except that the formal approval of the Appointment Committee was not obtained with regard to the validity of the panel dated 5.11.2000. L.P.A. No.801 of 2004 was filed challenging the order dated 17.5.2004, which was also dismissed observing that as and when respondents proceed to fill up the vacancies appointment must be made from the panel dated 5.11.2000. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as appointment letters bearing Memo Nos.69, 70, 71 dated 26.11.2000 was issued by the petitioner on the basis of the panel dated 5.11.2000 which was neither illegal nor irregular this Court may consider 6 to reduce the quantum of punishment. 7. State respondents have opposed the prayer. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that panel dated 5.11.2000 may have been validly published but the fact remains that the formal approval of the Appointment Committee was not obtained and petitioner being the Acting District Magistrate ought not to have proceeded with the appointment without the approval of the Appointment Committee. Learned counsel for the State, however does not dispute that there was any irregularity in the panel dated 5.11.2000. He only contends that there was technical flaw in issue of appointment letter dated 26.11.2000 as without the approval of the Appointment Committee appointment letters ought not to have issued by the petitioner. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and having appreciated their submissions, I am of the view that petitioner was serving as Acting District Magistrate and it was his duty to first obtain approval of the Appointment Committee to the panel dated 5.11.2000 and thereafter to issue the appointment 7 letter. Petitioner having issued appointment letters without the approval of the Appointment Committee cannot be absolved of charge no.1, however, considering the fact that there has been no irregularity found with the panel dated 5.11.2000 and no loss having been caused to the State Government, it is observed that the State Government may consider the request of the petitioner to reduce the punishment of withholding 25% pension by substituting the punishment with withholding of 5% pension. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)