IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1964 of 2004 HAR GOVIND PANDEY Son of Late Sheo Nath Pandey Resident of Village- Bishunpura, P.O.-Dol Chapra, P.S. Salempur, District-Deoria (U.P.) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariate, Patna. 3. The Assistant Director, Revenue and Land Reforms, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariate, Patna. 4. The Settlement Officer, Settlement Officer Town and District-Darbhanga. 5. The Assistant Settlement Officer ( Head Quarter) Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga 6. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Officer, Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga. 7. The District Provident Fund Officer, Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga. 8. The Director, Provident Fund Directoriate, Pant Bhawan, Patna 9. The Accountant General (A & E II) Bihar, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Atul Kr. Pandey, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC V. ---------- 6. 16.09.2010 When this writ was filed in the year 2004, petitioner had sought quashing of the departmental proceeding as well as the memo of charge issued to him on 7.6.1975. Obviously, the writ was filed in the year 2004 with such a prayer on a mistaken kind of advice since petitioner had already been dismissed by the respondents after holding a departmental enquiry. That order of dismissal was dated 3.9.1975. If an order of dismissal was already there, where was the occasion for the petitioner to 2 challenge the charge sheet or the departmental enquiry after almost 29 years of the order of dismissal having taken effect. However, there is something evident on record to show that at one point of time the petitioner was allowed to approach Member, Board of Revenue by way of an appeal against the order of dismissal. The Member Board of Revenue remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority on the technicality that before issuance of the order of dismissal, a second show cause was not issued to the petitioner. Another aspect which was pointed out is that the petitioner could not be dismissed from a back date but it should correlate to the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner with a lot of vehemence submitted that on remand of the matter by the Member, Board of Revenue, a second enquiry was held and the order in question came to be passed. The second enquiry was not permissible and there was no cogent reason for holding of an enquiry afresh, as there was no direction by the Member, Board of Revenue in this regard. It was in this background that the learned counsel for the State was directed to produce 3 the original record to verify as to what had transpired after the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority by the Member Board of Revenue. The record was made available even to the counsel for the petitioner for verification because it has emerged that there was no second enquiry conducted in the matter. On a mistaken impression on advice some steps in this regard was taken and even a letter was issued to the petitioner but when the disciplinary authority realized its mistake, petitioner was issued a second show cause. His objections against the proposed punishment was considered and thereafter the order dated 28.06.2004 came to be passed upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from 1.3.1976 instead of 3.9.1975. This challenge on the submission of the counsel therefore, cannot stand as a ground for interfering with the order of punishment. Obviously the petitioner has not been able to state the correct fact as to what exactly transpired after remand of the matter by the Member, Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that looking at the long period of service and the protracted litigation the Court should 4 reach out to the petitioner by interfering with the order of dismissal and directing the respondents to pass another order which may not be as harsh as it may seem, in the present State of affairs. Petitioner came into service in the year 1962 and was dismissed in the year 1976 i.e., about 14 years of service. Obviously, even before the date of punishment the proceeding came to be initiated on the set of charges which would be evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. This length of service is not good enough, in the opinion of this Court to interfere with the punishment order because any other order at best can be an order, of compulsory retirement. Since the petitioner does not have the length of service to beget him pension etc. reconsideration of the case on the point of view of quantum of punishment will not change the fate of the petitioner. The punishment is based on the outcome of the enquiry in which the petitioner had been given fullest opportunity to defend himself. Finding having come to be recorded against the petitioner, no case for inference is made out in the matter. The writ is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)