IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11825 of 2011 Rajendra Paswan S/o late Ram Charan Paswan R/O village Dharampur PO& PS Hatidah, Distt- Patna------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna----------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate For the State: Mr. Mani Kant Mishra, GP-25 ----------------------- 3 16.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is stated to be a Superintending Engineer who is going to retire on 30th of April, 2012. He seems to be a victim of circumstance in the sense that a lot of hue and cry was created with regard to non-reconciliation of A.C. D.C. bills in the State of Bihar. As a knee-jerk reaction desperate messages were sent out to the field to one or all to submit A.C.D.C. bills. To expedite submission of A.C. D.C. bills in the shortest possible time communication in this regard as contained in annexure-9 dated 29.7.2010 had been issued. Petitioner on receipt of the information submitted the so called outstanding A.C.D.C. bill which according to him was of Rs. 5760/- only relating to financial year 2002-03. For other years there was no bill to be reconciliated according to him. The forwarding of the petitioner is annexure-10 series. However the respondents’ authority did not consider it to be sufficient compliance and punishment of ‘Censor’ was imposed upon him for the year 2010-11 in terms of annexure-12. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 2 even if it is a minor punishment the petitioner ought to have been given a show cause notice in this regard. Since it is a case of non- application of mind as even to the fact that the petitioner had forwarded the so called A.C.D.C. bill in terms of annexure-10 series was not taken into account. If petitioner would have been given opportunity in this regard then there would be no case for imposing punishment in question. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State their stand is that the petitioner was asked to offer his explanation through a communication dated 5.8.2010 within twenty four hours. Since he did not bother to submit his explanation even after one month the consequence followed. Though there is mention of the said letter in the counter affidavit but the copy of the same was produced separately before this Court not as annexure. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter points out that the letter has been signed by the Principal Secretary on 20th July, 2010 though the notice of show cause is dated 5.8.2010. When the service was effected on the petitioner, if at all can be best guessed in the above circumstances and obviously the respondents were in a tearing hurry to impose punishment to send a message as an example to the defaulters. The Court is satisfied that the respondents authority have not exercised their power vested under Rule 2006 of Bihar Government (CCA) Rules. In terms of the requirement the petitioner had not been given opportunity to show cause and the punishment has 3 come to be passed against him without taking any explanation or looking into the records. In view of above annexure-12 is quashed. Matter is remanded back to the respondent authority with a direction that if the authority so desires they will proceed in the matter by issuing a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and only after considering his explanation something would be required to be done or else the matter may be allowed to rest, as the case may be. This writ application is allowed with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)