IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.2437 OF 2008 SHYAM NANDAN LAL KARN, SON OF LATE TEJ NARAYAN LAL KARN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HISAR, POLICE STATION KHIRHAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI, PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, GHORASAHAN CANAL DIVISION, RAXAUL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI …………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CANAL DIVISION NO. 1, BAGMATI NAHAR PRAMANDAL NO. 1, SITAMARHI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******** 4 28/03/2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure-7 by which the petitioner along with two other persons has been reverted to the post of Junior Engineer after their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer vide Annexure-5 dated 26.02.2005. The ground for reversion is Annexure-8. It would appear that Annexure-8 has been passed on an enquiry held by the authorities in which it was held that the measurement book nos. 355, 376, 377 and 409 are found missing from the office and as such, the petitioner has been punished by stopping further promotion for five years. The said order was issued on 26.12.1997. The order contained in Annexure-8 has apparently been passed after 17 years after the petitioner was posted out 2 at the concerned station in Gamariya, district Sitamarhi. At the outset, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that such an order of punishment had never been communicated to the petitioner which would be appear from Annexure-8 itself. More over, it appears that the memo number, which would indicate the date on which the said communication was issued to the persons mentioned in Annexure-8 is missing. There is no explanation for the missing memo number. It is also clear from examination of Annexure-8 that the copy of the order of punishment was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner, thus had no way of knowing that he had been punished by the concerned authority and had also lost the opportunity to challenge the order of punishment. Suddenly, after two years of his promotion, Annexure-7 was issued cancelling his promotion. In the counter affidavit, a stand has been taken that since the petitioner has not challenged the order of punishment dated 26.12.1997, he cannot challenge the order of reversion. This Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments in the writ application and in the counter affidavit, comes to the conclusion, that the order of punishment was never served on the petitioner and as such, he could not know 3 about the said order and therefore, he had no opportunity to challenge the said order of punishment. This Court also holds that since the order has been passed without even giving reasons for rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner in his show cause, and that to without serving a copy of the order of punishment on the petitioner, it cannot be held that the order of reversion is justified. In the result, I quash the order as contained in Annexure-7 issued vide officer Order No. 1009/07 dated 11.02.2007. This application is accordingly allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )