IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14743 of 2008 Kumari Ratna Sinha, wife of Sri Satya Narain Prasad, at present residing at Mohallah Kumhrar, P.S. Agam Kuan, Town & District Patna………………………………………………………………………………...Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. 4. The District Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Patna. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Phulwari Sharif, Patna…………………………………Respondents ---------- 2 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure-20, vide Memo No. 11021 dated 27.11.2007 issued from the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna by which, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding, she has been awarded with a punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. She has also challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in 2 Annexure-23, vide Memo No. 1237 dated 03.06.2008 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna by which her appeal has been rejected with modification in punishment by reducing withholding of two annual increments to one annual increment. The writ application was filed on 24.09.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Charge framed against the petitioner as appearing from the charge memo as contained in Memo No.2437 dated 29.03.2007 of the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna is as follows:- “vlSfud dk;Z izkjaHk djus ds funs'k dk vuqikyu ugha dj ljdkjh dk;Z esa ck/kk mRiUu djukA” Apparently, there can be no charge more vague than the above charge framed against the petitioner enclosed with the office order of the District Superintendent of Education. No document was also annexed 3 and supplied to the petitioner in support of the charge from which details of civil works, the orders disobeyed by the petitioner, location of civil works to be undertaken by her etc. could be evident. On the basis of such vague charge, proceeding has been held and petitioner has been punished. From reply of the petitioner to the charge, as contained in Annexure-16, it is apparent that petitioner’s defence was that specific land itself was not identified with supporting documents to enable her to commence construction works of the school building on account of which construction works could not commence. Apparently, the very inception of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is vitiated on account of vague charge framed against the petitioner. Hence, all the steps taken in the proceeding are apparently bad in law. In the circumstances, the impugned order of punishment, as contained in Annexure-20 and the order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-23, are 4 held to be vitiated and the entire proceeding on the basis of such vague charge is held to be illegal on account of vagueness. The same are, therefore, quashed. In view of the passage of time, this Court does not grant any liberty to the respondents to initiate any fresh proceeding against the petitioner again. Therefore, petitioner shall be entitled to all her annual increments in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of this proceeding, entitlement of her pensionary benefits has not been finalized and has not been paid though she has superannuated from service with effect from 31st January, 2010 itself. Respondents are, therefore, directed to calculate arrears of salary of petitioner after grant of due increments to her, if due, and are also directed to finalise entitlement of her pensionary benefits and pay the same and issue necessary sanction and payment orders positively three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5 This writ application is allowed in the manner indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)