LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.121 OF 2007 Against judgment and order dated 15.01.2007 passed in CWJC. No.8819 of 2006 ------------- AJEET SINGH SON OF LATE GOPAL DAS, RESIDENT OF BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, H.I.G., 5/2, SECTOR-7, P.S. AGAMKUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA………………………………….PETITIONER-APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION-CUM-JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION-CUM-DEPUTY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA…RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. ----------- For Appellant:- Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate For respondent:-Smt. Beena Singh, GA-10 ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Shiva Kirti Singh & Hemant Kumar Srivastava, JJ. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Advocate No.10 appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15.01.2007 whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC. No.8819 of 2006 was dismissed. The learned single Judge after noticing the submissions came to a conclusion that the disciplinary 2 proceeding against the writ petitioner did not suffer from any infirmity; the charges framed against him were duly established in the enquiry and on that basis punishment was awarded. 3. At the relevant time the writ petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Education at Bettiah and then at Muzaffarpur. Initially a complaint was made against him by a retired teacher that demand for illegal gratification has been made for settlement of his provident fund dues. That retired teacher had to approach the Lok Ayukt, Bihar in that matter for settlement of his retiral dues. In the proceeding before Lok Ayukt , in spite of notice the writ petitioner did not appear and the Lok Ayukt came to an opinion that the allegations made by retired teacher were prima facie correct. Inconvenienced by non co-operation by the writ petitioner, the office of the Lok Ayukt issued the letter dated 28.12.2002 addressed to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar for taking appropriate action against the petitioner. 4. Considering the entire facts and the attitude and behaviour of the writ petitioner in not co-operating with the proceeding before Lok Ayukt, two charges were framed against him, one with regard to harassment to the retired teacher at least by causing unnecessary delay in settlement of his retiral dues and second of indiscipline and insubordination by refusing to appear before the Lok Ayukt in spite of 3 notices. Subsequently, while this matter was still pending yet another charge had to be framed on account of alleged commission of irregularity in issuance of a tender notice. This third charge was included in the earlier enquiry and thus all the charges were enquired in the same proceeding. 5. The enquiry report available on record with the counter affidavit of respondents shows that all the three charges were found proved on the basis of materials made available before the enquiry officer. The impugned order of punishment dated 13.06.2006 contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition was based upon the findings given by the enquiry officer against the writ petitioner and the punishment inflicted was withholding of five annual increments with cumulative effect. The order of punishment was passed after giving second show-cause notice in respect of enquiry report. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant took us through the letter issued from office of Lok Ayukt dated 28.12.2002 to highlight the direction in that letter for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceeding for a suitable punishment to the writ petitioner. On that basis a point was sought to be made that the said letter worked as a diktat and influenced the concerned authorities leading to the impugned order of punishment. 7. The next submission was that the supplementary 4 charge could not have been framed and included in the proceeding initiated for the earlier charges. 8. With a view to appreciate the first submission noticed above, we went through the charges as well as the enquiry report and also impugned order of punishment. It was found that the letter of the Lok Ayukt had absolutely no other effect than to cause initiation of a disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law. The charges were based upon materials and facts available with the disciplinary authority. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the conclusions of the enquiry officer do not suffer from any infirmity. The order of punishment is also based upon proper consideration of relevant materials and does not even refer to the letter issued from the office of Lok Ayukt dated 28.12.2002. On proper consideration of the relevant materials, we find no substance in the first point argued on behalf of the appellant. 9. If such a submission is accepted only on likelihood of such letter having undue adverse effect, it would amount to create a total bar upon the powers of the disciplinary authority and for his lapses writ petitioner could never be proceeded or punished. Even if it be accepted for the sake of argument that the letter from the office of the Lok Ayukt was not properly worded and sounded like a diktat, that has no bearing upon the proceeding and the punishment because it was taken by the 5 authorities in proper spirit and neither the proceeding nor the punishment are even remotely based upon any diktat emerging from the said letter from the office of Lok Ayukt. 10. In our considered view, even if the said letter be defective, it cannot protect the writ petitioner from the proceeding based upon relevant facts and materials and from the order of punishment based upon proper findings given by the enquiry officer. 11. So far as point no.2 is concerned, it is not a case of inter-mixing two enquiries so as to cause any prejudice to the delinquent employee. In absence of any case of prejudice or violation of natural justice, we find no merit in the second submission. A supplementary charge can always be framed and included in a departmental proceeding if it causes no prejudice and does not violate principles of natural justice. 12. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. No cost. Patna High Court August 19th 2010 Md. Perwez Alam/AFR (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)