IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17354 of 2009 1. RANJAN KUMAR CHAUHAN S/O SRI JAYLAL SINGH R/O VILL.- KARARAHI, P.O.- KAMRAIL, P.S.- MAROUNDA, DISTT.- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY KARMIK AND PRASHASHNIK SUDHAR VIBHAG (BIHAR, PATNA) 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRING COMMISSIONER KARMIK AND PRASHASNIK SUDHAR VIBHAG, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE COMMISSIONER MUNGER, COMMISSIONARY MUNGER 8. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUNGER, DISTT.- MUNGER 9. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF –CUM-ADDL. SECRETARY, PATH NIRMAN VIBHAG, BIHAR, PATNA 10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.E.R.P. MUNGER, DISTT.- MUNGER ----------- 02 10.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is a Block Development Officer. He is alleged to have been proceeded departmentally on certain charges along with one Junior Engineer namely Jagdish Mallik. It is his specific pleading in paragraph- 18 of the writ application that the Junior Engineer has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding causing hostile discrimination to the petitioner by a punishment of censure for the years i.e. „1993-94‟ and that no salary shall be given for the period of suspension, except subsistence allowance. It is submitted that there cannot be two yardsticks of punishment with regard to two persons 2 proceeded with on common allegations. On aspect of the second punishment, learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench Judgment reported in 2006 (4) P.L.J.R. 515 (Dinesh Prasad Versus State of Bihar & Ors.)holding at paragraph-9 as follows:- “Apart from these questions, so far the main question for which this matter has been referred, is concerned, it appears that for imposing the punishment no. (iii) that the petitioner shall not get anything for the period of suspension save and except the subsistence allowance, the disciplinary authority was required to give separate show cause notice to the delinquent in terms of Rule 97 (3) of the Code. This part of the order, therefore, is not permissible in absence of any such notice to the delinquent employee.” There is no recital in the impugned order of this procedure having been followed by the respondents. The second punishment in absence of compliance of the procedures discussed by the Full Bench, therefore, is not sustainable and is set aside. Insofar as the punishment of censure is concerned, the matter is remanded to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner in light of his assertion of the Junior Engineer having been exonerated in the departmental proceeding on common charges in light of observation of the Supreme Court 3 (2008) 12 SCC 331 MAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS at paragraph-20. “20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise or right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a government action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of “fair play” and reasonableness.” Let such consideration be done and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)