CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10265 OF 1995 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ______ Brahma Nand Singh, son of late Ram Ugrah Singh, resident of village – Barhrauli, Police Station – Masrakh, District – Saran __________ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra. 3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra. 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Saran, Chapra. 5. The Block Development Officer, Taraiya, P.O. and P.S. Taraiya, District – Saran. _________ Respondents For the petitioner: M/S. Sanjeev Kumar and Vikash Ratan Bharti. For the State: _____ P R E S E N T THE HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J. Petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding of three increments for three years with cumulative effect as would be evident from Annexure-24 dated 22.9.1995. He was a Panchayat Sewak. He came to be charged with not only disobeying his superiors by not complying with the order of transfer but also defalcation of 2 government money for which a criminal case too was instituted. 2. Petitioner was tried under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate in absence of any evidence led by the prosecution. The departmental enquiry however was continued. Enquiry report contained in Annexure-8 was tendered to the disciplinary authority where the enquiry officer was of the opinion that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner should be revoked, specially in view of the fact that a criminal case was going on against him in the criminal court. Thereafter a series of writ applications came to be filed by the petitioner on many an occasions against his suspension, non-payment of subsistence allowance etc. including the order of punishment which came to be imposed upon him by the District Magistrate. This Court needs to take note of only the final order which was passed in CWJC No.9327 of 1993. The order is dated 12.1.1995 contained in Annexure-20. 3. The order of punishment passed against the petitioner was quashed by the High Court on the ground that he had not been served a copy of the enquiry report. 3 Since the Court was also informed that petitioner had been acquitted by the trial court in the criminal case, it directed the disciplinary authority, i.e. the District Magistrate to consider this aspect of the matter as well while furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. 4. From the records it appears that the observation of the court was taken as a direction for holding a fresh enquiry and a new enquiry came to be held and report thereof submitted on 2.1.1991. Finding of guilt against the petitioner came to be recorded at least on account of insubordination for not obeying the order of transfer and absenting without proper leave for a long period of time. Petitioner was asked to show cause and thereafter the order of punishment, contained in Annexure- 24, was passed against him, that is, withholding of increments for 3 years with cumulative effect. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for holding yet another enquiry because there was no requirement of holding a fresh enquiry for the same set of charges. There was no observation of the High Court in the earlier writ application (Annexure-20) to 4 hold a second enquiry. The order of punishment therefore is devoid of procedure established in law. In this regard attention of the Court is drawn to the case of Ganesh Pd Singh vs State of Bihar and others, 1993 (1) PLJR 706. That is one of the pointed submissions besides other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner carries weight. There is no explanation coming forth from the State as to the circumstance under which a second departmental enquiry was ordered or is permissible. If the High Court directed the respondent disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the earlier enquiry report before passing an order of punishment, how was it treated as a direction for holding a second enquiry, is not understood by this Court. 7. The manner in which the impugned order, contained in Annexure-24, has come to be passed, is not only in breach of the law established in this regard but also in violation of all the procedures laid down. A second enquiry is not permissible in law in above stated circumstances. The order of 5 punishment arising threrefrom cannot be sustained. 8. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-24 is quashed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J) Patna High Court: The 6th July, 2010. R. K. Pathak (NAFR)