IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2394 of 2001 SANTOSH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioner :Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Gyan Shankar and Mr.Brajesh Kumar For the State :Mr. Anant kumar, JC to SC XI ----------- 3 03.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner as Assistant engineer was associated with repair works of certain roads. On allegations of impropriety both for non-execution of the work and simultaneous release of payments he was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated. This was based on a preliminary enquiry report, submitted by the District Development officer. Based on this preliminary enquiry report, an FIR was simultaneously lodged against the Panchayat Sevak and Junior Engineer concerned. The police after investigation, submitted final report that the allegations were not true and were a mistake of fact. That the payments have been released after proper verification. In accordance with the provisions of the Code - 2 - of Criminal Procedure, notice was issued to informant by the Magistrate concerned. The informant did not oppose the final report which came to be accepted by the Court on 15.5.2000 and the proceeding dropped. The substratum of the allegations against the petitioner based on the preliminary enquiry report of the District Development Officer, therefore, fell through. In the departmental proceeding, the matter proceeded on preponderance of the probabilities, while the final report by the police was based on physical verification of facts at the site which now has the seal of the Court. The subject matter of the charge became non-est. Secondly, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry. The counter affidavit admits exoneration and also admits the allegation by the petitioner that no second show cause notice proposing to differ with the exoneration was given before visiting him with the order of punishment, and the ground of difference. On both counts the order of punishment dated 08.02.2000 is not sustainable in law and is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the full salary for the - 3 - period of suspension as also full salary for the period of three years he was kept away from duty as a punishment. Let the compliance be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. HR ( Navin Sinha )