IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13736 of 2009 SUKHDEO MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 30/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner while in service was proceeded against departmentally on 24.6.1997. He filed his show cause on 10.1.1998. The matter remained pending and he retired in February, 2003. When he came to this Court against his suspension as far back as 2001 while he was in service this Court directed the departmental proceedings to be concluded expeditiously within a maximum period of one month. Final orders of punishment have now been passed on 12.6.2008 directing recovery of Rs.25,61,898/- from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not reflect any application of mind to the cause shown by the petitioner and does not deal with and discuss why the cause shown to him was not acceptable, a mandatory requirement even if for the present the matter be viewed as one of minor punishment. Additionally it is contended that the order dated 12.6.2008 is not a final order, but is in the nature of a show cause notice issued to the petitioner calling 2 upon him to reply. He additionally raised the issue of matter being stale and, therefore, no justification for subjecting the petitioner to harassment at this belated stage. He also relied on certain judgements of the Supreme Court on such stale proceedings. The allegations relate to non-handing over of charge and materials of the stores as far back as 1997. Prima facie staleness appears to be a relevant issue in view of judicial pronouncements. Additionally, if the petitioner had shown cause, the impugned order dated 12.6.2008 which also refers to his participation, was explicitly required to deal with the cause shown and by a reasoned discussion arrive at a conclusion whether it was acceptable and if not, why it was not acceptable. This Court finds it difficult to hold that it is a simple show cause. The impugned order records a finding that he has been held liable to pay and, therefore, why should he not pay. The petitioner has been faced with a fait accompli. Since the representation is being disposed without a counter affidavit this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the order dated 12.6.2008. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. If the respondents wish to proceed further, they shall do so strictly in accordance with the 3 discussion as aforesaid inclusive of any other legal objections that the petitioner may raise. The present writ petition is confined to the issue of recovery from the petitioner and no other issues between the parties form the subject matter of the writ. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)