IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11830 of 2011 Ram Sagar Singh, son of Sri Ramanuj Singh, resident of village Harail, P.O. Harail, P.S. Mohiuddi Nagar, Dist. Samastipur Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, State of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Inspector General of Jail, State of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintendent, Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur. 4. The Superintendent, Divisional/Central Jail, Begusarai 5. The Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Jamui. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Gopal Govind Mishra & Ajay Kumar Singh. For the State: Mr. H S Sundaram, AC to GP 24. ----- 02. 23.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Show cause was issued to the petitioner when an inspection was carried out at Begusarai Jail as a part of the regular drill and a discovery was made that the petitioner who happened to be a warder had put a lock on the door without the latch of the cell being in place. In other words, the cell remained open which contained more than 50 and odd prisoners, which could have easily created an ugly situation if not facilitated the escape of some of the prisoners confined therein. Petitioner offered explanation which was not found to be satisfactory because the omission was a case of negligence per say. Though a detailed charge sheet was drawn up against the petitioner but the authorities decided not to hold a departmental proceeding for imposition of major punishment. They decided to impose minor punishment on the basis of show cause. Two punishments came to visit the petitioner. One was 2 withholding of one increment without cumulative effect which is a minor punishment and the other was that the petitioner was not entitled to payment of salary except subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension. No amount of submission can take away the omission of the petitioner with regard to his duty with the kind of nature of the allegation made against him and this Court is of the opinion that petitioner has got away lightly since respondents chose to impose a minor punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect and that too for one year. This punishment any way has run its course and petitioner must have got increment after expiry of one year as order relates to 2008. This is the minimum which could have been done in the present case. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the order. Coming to the second aspect of the punishment, there may be an occasion to interfere with the same in view of series of decisions which have been rendered by this Court earlier that punishment of withholding of salary for the period of suspension cannot be passed without following the procedure laid down in Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Obviously, the second punishment has been passed in breach of the Rule without issuance of specific show cause of this contemplated punishment which has come to visit the petitioner. Second punishment of non-payment of salary for the 3 period of suspension, therefore, stands quashed. Writ is allowed but with liberty to the respondents that if they want to pursue the matter, they will have to follow the requirement laid down in Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code with regard to withholding of salary for suspension period. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)