IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4636 of 2009 Bal Krishna Pandey . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . with CWJC No.3621 of 2010 1. Bal Krishna Pandey S/O Late Gopal Pandey R/O Main Road,Shastrinagar,P.S.Jehenabad,Distt-Jehanabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary,Road Construction Department Govt.Of Bihar,Patna 2. Additional Secretary,Road Construction Department Govt.Of Bihar,Patna 3. Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department Govt. Of Bihar,Patna 4. Superintending Engineer,Road Construction Department Magadh Road Circle,Gaya 5. Executive Engineer,Raod Construction Department Magadh Road Circle,Gaya ----------- 2. 22.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner in both the writ applications is the same person. C.W.J.C. No. 4636 of 2009 questions the order dated 11.11.2008 cancelling the time bound promotion dated 10.6.1991 on the post of Correspondence Clerk and the subsequent promotion dated 19.7.2006 on the need based post of Head Clerk on the ground that verification of the Accounts examination records reveal presentation of wrong documents by the petitioner for purposes of passing of the examination. A separate departmental proceeding was proposed for presenting such wrong documents. The petitioner has been reverted back to 2 the post of Correspondence Clerk. C.W.J.C. No. 3621 of 2010 questions the consequential order dated 10.11.2009 which directs recovery of the monetary benefits given in pursuance of the promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that a show cause notice was given on for 21.10.2008 for having allegedly procured promotion on basis of false certificates. The petitioner denied the charge. Whether the certificates were forged/fabricated or not were question of facts to be examined in an enquiry with proper opportunity to the petitioner for defence. The consequence of reversion and recovery were serious. To cancel the promotion first and then direct a departmental proceeding tantamounts to punishing him first and then fulfilling the formality of an enquiry. If the promotion has been cancelled and mandatory recovery ordered nothing survives for the enquiry. Counsel for the State emphasizes the nature of the allegations with regard to a government servant. He submits that holding of the departmental enquiry for submission of wrong documents is an entirely different mater from the satisfaction arrived at of a promotion wrongly given. 3 The petitioner is stated to have passed the departmental accounts examination. He was the sole beneficiary of the documents which are alleged to be forged/fabricated. But then forgery and fabrication are question of facts which require examination of documents and evidence. There can be no unilateral assessment of forgery and fabrication without confronting the person concerned with the grounds for the same. The show cause notice dated 21.10.2008 is not in accordance with law and discloses no grounds, it confronts the petitioner with conclusions. The petitioner had to be made aware of the grounds on which the respondents suspect his documents. He had to be given an opportunity to rebut the same. Therefore the respondents rightly decided on a departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding the allegation of forgery/fabrication had to be proved. The petitioner would have the opportunity to rebut it. At this stage the Court is satisfied that to cancel the promotion in the manner done and to then decide on a departmental proceeding thereafter was not fully in accordance with law. Keeping in mind the seriousness of the nature of the allegations, the Court directs that whatever recovery has been 4 made against the petitioner cannot be refunded, but no further deduction shall be made from him under the order dated 10.11.2009. The order of reversion dated 11.11.2008 shall only be kept in abeyance for the purpose of facilitating the departmental enquiry. It shall not result in his reinstatement on the promoted post. Let the departmental proceedings be now concluded in accordance with law by service of proper memo of charges on the petitioner within a maximum period of six months to be computed from the date of service of the memo of charges. The memo of charges if not already served must be served within a maximum period of four weeks from today. The time period of six months shall operate provided the petitioner himself co-operates. Liberty is granted to the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority to proceed ex parte also if necessary to complete the proceedings within the time fixed but after recording full reasons of their satisfaction with regard to the efforts made to persuade the petitioner to participate notwithstanding which he refused to do so. If the memo of charges are not served within the period directed or the departmental 5 proceedings are not concluded in the manner indicated within the time period fixed, the order of reversion shall automatically loose its force in law with all attendant consequences. Needless to add that if the departmental proceedings are concluded in the aforesaid manner in accordance with law the status of the petitioner including the aspect of recovery shall necessarily have to abide by the findings that may be arrived whether in favour of the petitioner or against him when it shall operate retrospectively. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)