IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13405 of 2001 THEODORE SORANG SON OF LATE KARLUS SORANG, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LOYADIH, P.S. NAMKUM, DISTRICT RANCHI AT PRESENT POSTED AS CLERK IN THE DISTRICT JAIL, MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, BIHAR. 4. SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, MADHUBANI. 5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Banwari Sharma & Shiv Kumar. For the State of Bihar :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, A.C. to S.C.XI For the State of Jharkhand :- Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee. ---- 14 12/08/2010 Earlier this writ application of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 13.12.2007. Orders of punishment contained in annexure-4 as well as the order of rejection of appeal contained in annexure-6 came to be quashed. But the matter traveled before the L.P.A. Bench and the earlier order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for re- consideration for the reasons that the State of Jharkhand was not made party or heard which was a necessary party to the dispute. It is in this background that the matter is being - 2 - considered afresh by this Court. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has now filed a detailed counter affidavit, perusal of which would show that a detailed enquiry was made. A set of three charges were drawn up against the petitioner and only on the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer, the punishment order came to be passed. Earlier statement made that major punishment has been imposed in a summary proceeding does not seem to be true. In view of the evidence brought in the counter affidavit that objection of the petitioner is not worthy of consideration. However, on due deliberations, one infirmity has emerged in the proceeding inasmuch as the petitioner was never given a second show cause after completion of the enquiry by the disciplinary authority before imposition of punishment. There is no clear evidence to belie the assertion made in the writ application or, in fact, it cannot be denied that the omission of the kind did happen, in the present proceeding. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that a second show cause before imposition of punishment along with a copy of the enquiry report is required to be furnished - 3 - to the delinquent and breach thereof will make the order of punishment vulnerable. After having heard learned counsels for the parties to the dispute on either side, the Court is not convinced with the larger challenge to the enquiry or the findings given by the Enquiry Officer that the same requires any interference. But the other objection of the petitioner merits consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner does accept and agree that the petitioner’s service now stands transferred to the State of Jharkhand and he is serving the State of Jharkhand after allocation of cadre and division of the State. If that be so, even if the origin of the present proceeding was before bifurcation and the order of punishment and appeal were prior to the bifurcation but due to subsequent development and severance of relationship, the State of Bihar cannot exercise any control or authority over the petitioner. In the above background, two impugned orders contained in annexures 4 & 6 stand quashed but the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority of Jharkhand that he shall issue a second show cause to the petitioner. Taking into consideration his response to the same disciplinary authority - 4 - would decide to proceed in the matter depending upon the outcome of the explanation offered by the petitioner. This writ application is allowed on the above count and score to the extent as above. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the I.G. Prison, Jharkhand for the follow up action. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)