CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9070 of 1996 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ____ AWADHESH KUMAR SINHA, son of late Akalu Singh, resident of Village – Rasalpur, Police Station – Mofussil, District – Gaya. ________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. _________ Respondents For the petitioner: Mr. R. N. Mukhopadhaya. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG-IX. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ------- Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J. Petitioner entered service as an Assistant Engineer way back in the year 1979. On 4th of May, 1982 he was transferred from the post of Estimate Officer, Konar Canal Division, located at Bagodar to the place of posting which has become the subject matter of the present litigation. Petitioner was asked to hold the post of Sub Divisional Officer in Fulwaria Dam Sub Division No.4, located at Rajauli in the district of Nawada. He took charge from one Sushil Kumar Rai on 16th June, 1982. Having served at Rajauli petitioner was again transferred as Sub Divisional Officer, Water-ways Sub Division, Bundu at Ranchi. This transfer was effected on 25th March, 1985. After the transfer of the petitioner a Flying Squad Team made certain enquiries with regard to the work done at Fulwaria Dam and 2 based on the report of the Flying Squad, show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner. Since the so-called show cause filed by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory by the authorities, certain punishments which are stated to be minor in nature came to be imposed upon him. The punishments included censure, recovery of a sum of Rs.33058/- as well as non-payment of salary etc. for the period of suspension. When such a punishment order came to be passed petitioner came before the High Court and the High Court set aside the order of punishment on the ground that even if a detailed enquiry was not required to be conducted under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, petitioner ought to have been given at least a copy of the flying squad’s report. The second round of proceeding, therefore, was initiated which again culminated in the same kind of punishment with minor variance with regard to the 3rd punishment, effected at the level of the appellate authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if nature of the punishment was minor as per the definition given under the relevant rules, the facts stand that it has implications for him having civil consequences. Minor or major punishment cannot be imposed unless culpability of the petitioner is established and the basic materials for imposition of those punishments are available from record. The foundational fact for initiation of a proceeding was the report of the flying squad. The said report has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 placed the report in its entirety to impress upon the Court that there is no material as such to pin down the petitioner unless a very broad leeway is allowed to the respondents. The primary finding given by the flying squad is that certain work had to be carried out by mechanized form by use of a bulldozer but manual labour was engaged on muster- roll and money has been spent in taking work through manual labour contrary to the directions of the Chief Engineer on this issue. Petitioner states that there is clear indication in the report itself that the muster-roll was opened much before the petitioner joined the post. The expenses made by the petitioner in getting the work executed along with others had due approval of the Executive Engineer. He had carried out the directions of the Executive Engineer, who is in over all control of the project. Petitioner had carried out the duties and the directions of his senior, who is expected to know the best as to what is to be done in execution of the project. 3. There is nothing to show that any act of the petitioner was deliberate and done in gross violation of any directions issued by the superiors at any point of time. Mechanically quantifying an amount as the expenses done by the petitioner in execution of the work without indicating the basis for such a calculation or giving the findings as to how was such a loss worked out would be doing injustice to the petitioner, who was way down in the hierarchy with a meagre salary to his credit. 4. Counsel for the State submits that liability has to be fixed if there is violation of the directions. If the Chief Engineer had 4 given a direction for carrying out the work through a bulldozer it should have been done and if it was not done, then the expenses done or approved by the petitioner was taken as the basis for recovery and 50 per cent of that amount was fixed as the liability of the petitioner in this regard. 5. With due deference to the learned counsel for the State the attitude and the approach of the respondents is a very simplistic one. There is no discussion or material to show that they really applied themselves to the issue raised in the report of the flying squad and the show cause or explanation offered by the petitioner. A mechanical way of imposing punishment, even if minor in nature, does cast stigma upon an employee and no punishment can come to visit him unless an open and shut case was made for imposition of such punishment. 6. On perusal of the enquiry report of the flying squad and the show cause offered by the petitioner, this Court does not come to a conclusion that a case was made out for imposition of punishment of the kind upon the petitioner. The respondents have taken an easy way out by punishing one and all. Petitioner has been mechanically punished because he was posted at the place of work and significantly all this enquiry or investigation by the flying squad was done behind his back when he stood transferred years ago from the place of posting. 7. The order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner in the manner in which it has been done cannot be sustained. Both 5 Annexure-1 dated 29.3.1996 and Anneuxre-13 dated 18.2.1999 therefore are quashed. 8. The writ application is allowed. There will be no order, however, as to cost. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court: The 23rd November, 2010 R K Pathak (NAFR).