IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10122 of 2010 1. MITHILESH KUMAR VERMA S/O SRI BRINDRA PRATAP NARAYAN AT PRESENT POSTED AS SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRRIGATION SUB-DIVISION, UDAKISHUNGANJ, MADHEPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, SECTION-8, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, EASTERN SONE, HIGH LEVEL CANAL DIVISION, TEKARI, DISTT.- GAYA 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MURALIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Naresh Dixit, Adv. For the State : G.P.-19, Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha, Mr.Rakesh Prabhat, Mr.Gopal Krishna, Mrs.Archana Prasad and Mr.Rajeev Shekhar, Advocates. ------------ 3 02.05.2011 Petitioner has challenged Annexure-23 which was passed by the Joint Secretary of the Department on 19.12.2007 pursuant to an order of this Court dated 06.07.2007 passed in the writ application of the petitioner, namely, CWJC No.13152 of 2003, a copy whereof is Annexure-21. By the impugned order, the Joint Secretary has affirmed the earlier order issued through letter no.792 dated 14.02.2004 2 by which the salary of the petitioner of the period September, 2003 to December 2003 was denied on the principle of ‘no work no pay.’ From the order of the Joint Secretary, it does not appear that before permanently denying the salary of the petitioner of the period any notice was issued to him and any opportunity was given to him to explain his conduct and file his show case. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. There is no material on record to show that the Principles of Natural Justice was complied with by the respondents before issuing that letter in 2004 which has been affirmed by the impugned order Annexure-23. In the circumstances, the order (Annexure-23) so far as it affirms the earlier order denying the salary of the petitioner of the period September, 2003 to December 2003 on permanent basis is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner giving him opportunity to file his show cause and explain his conduct with support of documents on which he intends to reply within a fix period. If such notice is issued to the 3 petitioner and reply is filed, the respondents shall consider the same and pass fresh orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)