IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6537 of 2011 Kishor Kumar Kishor SON OF LATE SACHCHIDA NAND GUPTA, RESIDENT OF GARDANIBAGH, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, PATNA. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ] 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER-CUM-DEPUTY SECRETARY OF GOVERNMET CABINET (ELECTION) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. ---------------------------------- 2 04/08/2011 Petitioner was an Assistant and Incharge of the department concerned. While he was on deputation with the Election department, one Ajay Kumar, a routine clerk was put under suspension because he had failed to put up the letters as well as replies to the Election Commission within the required time frame. Non communication or response of the State Election Commission was not viewed lightly by the people sitting in Delhi. Ajay Kumar was put under suspension and in terms of Rules of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 a time frame for service of chargesheet on the accused is fixed for 90 days. - 2 - Allegation against the petitioner is that he did not draw the chargesheet within the statutory period which was failure to perform duty. This led to revocation of suspension order against Ajay Kumar. A chargesheet was drawn up against the petitioner which would be evident from perusal of page 28 of the writ application which is part of annexure-3. An enquiry was held. Omission of the petitioner was found to a large extent and a recommendation for imposition of punishment was made by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority decided to impose punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the order of punishment, he went in appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue. Submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was never served a chargesheet in Prapatra (Ka) which was required to be done in terms of 2005 rules but asked or demanded opportunity for examination or cross examination as well as service of the chargesheet in Prapatra (Ka) but this was ignored and enquiry was held and report submitted. If the basics of the enquiry were not adhered to, - 3 - no punishment ought to have been imposed on the findings given by the enquiry officer. It is also urged that the enquiry officer only recommended issuance of warning or caution, but the disciplinary authority went over board by imposing yet another punishment. One aspect which must be clarified at the outset is that the punishment in question has been termed to be a minor punishment under 2005 Rules. For imposition of punishment of such a kind, a show cause is enough and no full fledged enquiry as such is required. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to explain himself because there are annexures to show that he had responded to the charges contained in annexure-3 meticulously on every aspect of the matter with the so called annexures thereto. In so far as annexure-6 is concerned, which is the objection, it is more of an objection for the sake of objection rather than any conviction behind it to press it beyond a point. The petitioner has participated in the so called enquiry which was more from the point of giving a personal hearing to the petitioner than a full fledged enquiry for imposition of major punishment. - 4 - It cannot be the case of the petitioner that his culpability does not emerge. The explanation offered by him is only a mechanism to shirk his responsibility for non performance. If the circumstances did exist then the disciplinary authority cannot be bound by the recommendation of the enquiry officer that he should be warned/cautioned and nothing more is required to be done. The Court has even gone through the detailed order which has been passed in appeal by the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue has gone through all the submissions which have also been made at the Bar in the present writ application and they have been meticulously answered on every count. Here also the appellate authority did find cogent materials to atleast impose minimum of punishment which was required to be done with regard to the petitioner. In totality, therefore, the stand of the State which is borne out from the counter affidavit is also supported by the materials which were brought on record by the petitioner himself since it is not a case of non culpability or non finding of omission on the part of the petitioner then the - 5 - Court would not like to interfere with the minimum of punishment which was imposed in the given circumstance. The other submissions have no meaning since the punishment in question is minor punishment and the so called infirmities with regard to the enquiry do not go to the root of the matter. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)