IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11523 of 2006 NIRANJAN PATHAK, S/O DINESH PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MANJHARIA, MATH, P.S. – GAUNHA, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARAN. ………… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. ………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 05.05.2011 I.A. No. 10199 of 2010 Interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the legal heirs and representatives of original petitioner Niranjan Pathak. The petitioner died on 9.10.2008 leaving behind his legal heirs and representatives, whose names have been mentioned in para 2 of the interlocutory application. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is allowed with a direction to expunge the name of original petitioner Niranjan Pathak from the records of the case and for substituting the name of Lalita Pathak, Raj Kumar Pathak, Mukesh Kumar Pathak and Rajeev Kumar Pathak and Seema Mishra as petitioners in this case. C.W.J.C. No. 11523 of 2006 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel 2 appearing for the State. This writ application was filed by the original petitioner for quashing the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah, awarding punishment of dismissal from service in the departmental proceeding initiated against him for the alleged charge of defalcation of govt. money amounting to Rs.2,02,730/-. Further for quashing of the appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 27 of 2006 affirming the order passed by the District Magistrate in the departmental proceeding. Petitioner had also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Panchayat Sewak and to make payment of his arrears of salary and other monetary benefits. On perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that petitioner withdrew Rs.2,02,730/- taking signature of the Mukhiya. The money was for execution of some project under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana but it was defalcated. In the departmental 3 proceeding show cause notice was issued to him for submitting his show cause along with the charge sheet. Show cause was filed by the petitioner. Considering the show cause and other evidence, enquiry report was submitted by the Conducting Officer. The Conducting Officer recommended for awarding punishment of recovery of defalcated amount as well as withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. However, Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause with proposed punishment of dismissal from service. Considering the second show cause, filed by the delinquent, final order was passed awarding punishment of dismissal from service. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed with a reasoned order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that punishment has been awarded in violation of Rule 166 of the Bihar Board Misc. Rules. Board Miscellaneous Rule 166, simply provide that the delinquent must be issued a notice showing reasons for awarding proposed punishment and opportunity be provided for submitting his defence against the 4 proposed punishment. I find that this submission has also no substance because for imposing serious punishment like dismissal, only requirement under the Rule is that delinquent be informed in writing, disclosing grounds for awarding proposed punishment. That being duly complied before awarding punishment of dismissal. I do not find any illegality in the order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)