IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7336 of 2004 1. SHAMSA KHATOON WIDOW OF LATE SRI SHAKUR SHEIKH. 2. SHAHBAZ AHMAD SON OF LATE SRI SHAKUR SHEIKH 3. SARFARAZ AHMAD SON OF LATE SRI SHAKUR SHEIKH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNDIPUR, P.O. SUNDIPUR, P.S. MAJHIAWAN, DISTRICT GARHWA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERY DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR (DAIRY DEVELOPMENT), NORTH BIHAR, MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- For the Petitioners :- M/S. Satish Narain Singh, Dilip Kumar & Sanjay Kumar Singh. For the State :- Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, A.C. to A.A.G. IV ------ 3 28/07/2010 I.A. No. 3301 of 2006 has been filed for substitution of the petitioner by their legal heirs whose names are indicated in paragraph 3. Original petitioner died on 16.04.2006 which has necessitated filing of the substitution petition. I.A. No. 3301 of 2006 is allowed. Let the legal heirs - 2 - indicated in paragraph 3 of the I.A. be substituted in place of the present petitioner. Original petitioner Shakur Sheikh was holding the post of District Dairy Development Officer and was posted at Vaishali. He came to be chargesheeted for the so called omission and commission committed by him for which a chargesheet was also drawn up and a departmental proceeding initiated. The Enquiry Officer has given his findings on the set of charges and found the original petitioner guilty of few of the charges. With regard to some others, his opinion was that the petitioner lacked basic administrative skill and tact which has led to discard in the office. Some of the charges related to financial indiscipline as well. After the original petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause against the finding of the Enquiry Officer and taking the entirety of the facts, two orders of punishment came to be passed against him which is contained in annexure-14 dated 19.2.2003. One punishment was withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and the other that the petitioner would not be entitled to payment of - 3 - any kind except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the enquiry was not properly conducted and held. He was not furnished with the materials and the documents with which he could set up his defence effectively and findings given by the Enquiry Officer did not call for punishment of the kind in question which has serious ramification. Court has gone through the charges and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer. Even if a very broad view is taken of the matter, then the Court has difficulty in coming to a conclusion that it is not a case for non imposition of punishment. There are certain mitigating factors but the original petitioner cannot be totally absolved of atleast some of the charges. That is why ultimately the disciplinary authority imposed only two punishments which cannot be said to be of serious in nature. However, there is some force in the submissions made at the Bar with regard to imposition of second punishment. Second punishment relates to non grant of salary and other benefits for the period the original petitioner - 4 - remained under suspension. Submission of the learned counsel is that this punishment has been awarded without following the procedure laid down in Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code for a punishment of the kind. He had to be given an opportunity which has not been done in the present case. Law on this issue is well settled. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramashray Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2000(3) PLJR, 41. Learned counsel representing the State does not dispute the proposition of law which has been laid down in the above decision. There is nothing to indicate that the second punishment in question was imposed upon the petitioner after following the procedure laid down in Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code and if that is so, then the punishment is quashed. If the original employee would have been alive, then the Court would have considered remanding the matter back but the fact is that he died in harness and, therefore, no - 5 - proceeding can be continued after his death. In that view of the matter, second punishment is quashed. This writ application is allowed to that extent only. The consequences thereof shall flow in favour of the legal heirs of the original petitioner who have already been substituted in his place. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)