IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7640 of 2010 1. Pawan Kumar, S/O Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, R/O Mohalla- 4m-162 Bahadurpur Housing Colony,Patna, P.S.- Kankarbagh,District-Patna And At Present Posted As Assistnat, District Treasury,Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary , Department Of Finance,Bihar,Patna. 2. The Commissioner Cum Secretary , Department Of Finance,Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariate,Patna. 3. The District Magistrate,Bhagalpur. 4. The Senior Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur. 5. The District Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur. ---------------------------------- 3. 29.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was originally appointed in the Bihar State Textile Corporation. In 1999 a policy decision was taken to depute employees of sick and defunct State Corporation’s in State Treasury/Collectorate, initially on deputation for three years and subsequently absorbed based on satisfactory service. The petitioner came to be so deputed as Lower Division Clerk, in the Bhagalpur Treasury in September 2001 and joined in February 2002. When the petitioner was sought to be repatriated to the parent Corporation on the basis of cut off date 16.11.1999 he came to this Court in CWJC No. 9867 of 2002, along with others. This Court in a batch of analogous applications led by CWJC No. 10096 of 2002 on 2.3.2009 granted status quo. The writ application is stated to be pending. On 6.4.2010 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why appropriate disciplinary and punitive action be not taken against him with respect to the occurrence of 31.3.2010 at 3.30 PM when the District Magistrate Bhagalpur visited the Treasury. It stated that two persons behind the Computer Room were talking who fled upon seeing the District Magistrate and did not even listen to the direction of the 2 personal Security Officer of the District Magistrate to stop. Such suspicious conduct was unbecoming of a government servant. The petitioner submitted his reply on 8.4.2010 that he was busy with the work and was not aware who the two persons were. He was informed by his colleagues that it related to a messenger from the Rural Works Division, Bhagalpur, who was subsequently produced before the District Magistrate also. The petitioner stated that he may be excused if he had offended the District Magistrate in any manner. The impugned order dated 22.4.2010 has then followed repatriating him to his parent Corporation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice did not make any allegation that the petitioner did not follow any direction of the District Magistrate. It does not allege that he was one of the two persons. The petitioner had explained in his reply and also asserted that the persons concerned were subsequently presented before the District Magistrate also. The final order repatriating him was unreasoned and also suffered also from the vice of an attempt to overcome the status quo order in CWJC No. 9867 of 2002. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit on behalf of the District Magistrate submits that the petitioner was gossiping with two strangers without sufficient reasons. Clearly the respondents are trying to introduce new story beyond the show cause notice dated 6.4.2010.The counter affidavit next states that the reply of the petitioner was vague and did not inspire confidence. To the mind of the Court if the show cause notice issued itself was vague it is difficult to appreciate what is intended by the respondents saying that the reply of the petitioner was vague. The counter affidavit alleges that the conduct of the petitioner was highly 3 derogatory. The Court finds it very difficult to appreciate from the materials in the show cause notice, what was derogatory. If the respondents were of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner was derogatory it was for them to draw up a proper proceeding against him and deal with him appropriately. The respondents cannot make such serious allegations against a government employee and then treat it so lightly. The allegations are being made against the petitioner for misconduct in discharge of duties. The show cause notice, does not disclose any such ground. The assertion of the petitioner at paragraph 8 of the writ application with regard to the status quo order of this Court is acknowledged but not answered. The Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondents were essentially seeking to do indirectly what was not open to them to do directly by overreaching the order of status quo passed by this Court. The explanation sought to be urged for the derogatory misconduct of the petitioner only exposes the respondents mind as fishing for grounds to justify an illegal order. The Court upon consideration of the entire materials is disappointed of the manner in which responsible power has been irresponsible exercised wasting not only the finance of the State in defending an action based mere on a bruised ego, generating litigation which should never have been there, wasting the time of the Court which could have been better utilized in more serious adjudicatory questions. Nothing in the present order shall have any bearing on CWJC No. 10096 of 2002. The order dated 22.4.21010 is accordingly set-aside. This writ application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 4