IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5381 of 2006 Ramkrit Pandey, son of Ganesh Pandey, resident of Mohalla Bishunpuri Colony (Chand Chaura), P.S. Civil Lines, Gaya, District Gaya … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The District Education Officer, Nawada … Respondents ----------- 6. 24.6.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief: “That this is an application on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions for quashing the order dated 1.2.2006 contained in Memo No. 123(Vidhi) issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna by which the 20% of the pension amount of the petitioner has been deducted and he was also awarded another punishment that salary of the period of suspension shall not be given to him. The petitioner also prays for direction that after quashing of order impugned his total pensionary amount as well as his arrear of salaries may be given 2 he further prays for any other relief/ reliefs for which his found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of punishment passed in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules cannot be sustained, inasmuch as there is a complete non-consideration to the aspect that charge no.1 against the petitioner was not proved in the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and yet the disciplinary authority without differing with such finding of the Enquiry Officer had taken the same also into consideration for inflicting punishment. The petitioner being a Headmaster of the school when he was subjected to a criminal proceeding on a private complaint cum First Information Report relating to some theft of computer by him and his son and was taken into custody, he being the Headmaster had to inform the authority both of his being taken into custody and again seeking permission for acceptance of joining after revocation of the order of suspension which had been passed in the intervening 3 period. Admittedly the petitioner had never sought permission of the competent authority to rejoin his post who had placed him earlier under suspension. The explanation of the petitioner that he had informed the District Education Officer or that the District Education Officer had orally asked him to rejoin his duty cannot be accepted and to that extent the finding of the Enquiry Officer as with regard to charge no.2 being proved is perfectly correct and justified. The difficulty, however, is that the impugned order of punishment has been passed by taking into account both charge no.1 and charge no.2, whereas charge no.1 as noted above was never proved against the petitioner and if therefore the disciplinary authority wanted to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, who too had not gone into this aspect by taking into account that a substantive criminal case for that very allegation was still pending, this Court would find it difficult to sustain the impugned order of punishment forfeiting not only 20% of pension for the life long of the 4 petitioner but also depriving him for payment of salary beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, i.e. 19.1.2002 to 6.5.2004. The petitioner has thus definitely a valid point that such a punishment would be in violation of the principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84. The subsequent event which has been brought by the petitioner on record by filing a supplementary affidavit would go to show that the petitioner was given the benefit of doubt in recording acquittal in the criminal case which was the subject matter of charge no.1. Such acquittal being not a clean acquittal but only a benefit of doubt it will be always open for the authorities to take into account as to whether it would like to proceed further or shelve the matter for inflicting punishment against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority will also have to be taken into account that depriving the petitioner from payment of his 5 salary for the period of suspension in view of specific condition imposed in the order of his suspension dated 7.5.2004 containing a clause that the entitlement for the period of suspension from 19.1.2002 to 6.5.2004 was kept dependent on the result of the criminal case. The criminal case as noted above has ended in acquittal in favour of the petitioner and as such when a fresh decision has to be taken by the respondents, they would also be under obligation to see the effect of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. Considering all these aspects this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 1.2.2006, as contained in Annexure 5, would remit the matter back to the Director, Secondary Education to reconsider the whole matter and pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, if he still intends to also punish the petitioner in respect of charge no.1. If, however, the Director, Secondary Education is of the view that after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case charge no.1 is no longer going to be taken into consideration for 6 inflicting punishment against the petitioner he would proceed to pass his fresh order as with regard to remaining charge no.2, which, as noted above, has stood proved against the petitioner. In doing so it is expected that the Director, Secondary Education will also keep in mind that the petitioner has already suffered for a period over nine years by way of suspension, criminal case and the impugned order of punishment. Let such an exercise be completed by the Director, Secondary Education within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application, to the extent indicated above, is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/