IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10023 of 1997 SMT. BIMLA DEVI WIFE OF HARBALLABH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUPAS, TOLA BABU CHHEDI SINGH, P.S. ATHMALGOLA, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ----------- 5 19/08/2010 Husband of the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna. For some serious charges of omission and commission which are borne out from the chargesheet contained in annexure-4, a departmental enquiry was conducted and initially an order of discharge was passed against him with effect from 19.3.1993. Petitioner’s husband came before this Court challenging that order of punishment but the High Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case disposed of the writ application giving liberty to the him to file appeal and urge all the points available to him. Appeal was filed, matter was - 2 - reconsidered sympathetically taking into consideration that the delinquent had retired in the meanwhile on 31.1.1995. However, vide order contained in annexure-1, three punishments remained. The original order of discharge was set aside but punishment of censor to be recorded in his service book was ordered. In addition, it was also held that the delinquent would not be entitled to payment of any other kind except the subsistence allowance for the period 30.9.1991 to 18.3.1993. It was also directed that since the husband of the petitioner never returned to duty after his discharge till his date of superannuation on 31.1.1995, this period will be treated as period of no work no pay. It was further clarified that none of these punishments will come in the way of grant of pension to the delinquent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical situation for same set of charges another employee, namely, Bhola Ram has been allowed to go scot free by the High Court based on the order rendered by the learned Single Judge which has been annexed as annexure-16 to the writ application. There are similar infirmities so far as punishment order is concerned in relation to the husband of the present petitioner. Submissions have been made that he was not - 3 - given proper opportunity to defend himself. Evidences were not provided and copy of the enquiry report was also not given to him and in the circumstances of the kind, the order of punishment ought to be set aside. Learned counsel for State,however, in his counter affidavit has denied all these allegations and assertions. Order of punishment, according to him, has come to visit the husband of the petitioner after a proper enquiry was held in which he participated through and through. Copy of the said enquiry report was also given to him. A reading of the appeal and reply to the second show cause would show that the delinquent has meticulously answered the charges which could not have been done in absence of the enquiry report. It could have been a case of statement against statement made on oath from either side and this Court could have been left with some area of doubt on this issue if the delinquent had not himself brought annexure-15 on record with this writ application. There is a detailed narration of the circumstance under which enquiry was ordered to be held, the manner in which the enquiry was held, the participation of the petitioner on various dates, service of the enquiry report etc. etc. A reading of Annexure- 15 knocks out the - 4 - very foundation on which the edifice of the present case has been built up. Since annexure-15 has been brought on record by the husband of the petitioner himself along with the writ application, it cannot even be alleged that it is a mischievous document which has been produced by the respondents to dilute the case of the petitioner. Obviously, all the grounds which have been urged in the writ application to over come the punishment are not based on actual state of affair and the assertion made in the writ application does not state the true factual position with regard to the enquiry. In the above stated circumstance this Court has reservation in accepting the submissions made at the Bar with regard to the infirmities pointed out with the enquiry or the order of punishment. Order of punishment has come to visit him after the process had been meticulously gone through by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)