IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6997 of 2007 Ajay Kumar, SON OF LATE RAMADHIN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- NAYATOLA, KAZIPUR, POLICE STATION- PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT- PATNA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE COMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA :--- RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- M/S. Udaychand Prasad, Binod Kumar Sinha, Manoj Kumar, Advocates. For the State :- Mr. Narendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 22. ====== 2. 22.12.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner was serving as Routine Clerk in the Cabinet (Election) Department, Bihar, Patna on deputation. He is aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2007 (Annexure-9) passed by the Joint Secretary of his Parent Department i.e. Minor Irrigation Department, whereunder he has been punished with censure and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect with further direction not to receive salary beyond the Subsistence Allowance for the period of suspension. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier petitioner was suspended and reverted to his Parent Department under Order No. 45 bearing Memo No. 4971 dated 29.9.2005, Annexure-3. Memo 2 of charge was received from the Cabinet (Election) Department under Letter No. 2882 dated 15.9.2006 and in the light of the allegations contained in the memo of charge departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under resolution of the Minor Irrigation Department bearing no. 5731 dated 27.11.2006 in which petitioner submitted his show-cause reply before the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer having considered the show-cause reply submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Placing reliance on the report of the Enquiry Officer impugned punishment order dated 23rd March, 2007 was passed against the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that perusal of Paragraph 4 of the impugned punishment order itself indicate that the same was passed in the light of the findings recorded against him by the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that Enquiry Report which is the basis of the impugned punishment order was never served on the petitioner contrary to the provisions in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and statement to that effect has been made in Paragraph 28 of the writ petition. Aforesaid submission of the petitioner has been refuted in 3 Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, perusal whereof indicates that Enquiry Report is said to have been served on the petitioner with reference to Letter No. 13 dated 2.1.2007 of the Enquiry Officer, Annexure- 6 to the counter affidavit. Perusal of the letter dated 2.1.2007, Annexure-6 indicates that the said letter has been addressed to the Joint Secretary of the department who is the author of the impugned order and along with the letter dated 2.1.2007 two copies of the Enquiry Report has been forwarded to the Joint Secretary. 4. It does not appear from the letter dated 2.1.2007 that the copy of the Enquiry Report was ever served on the petitioner. As the copy of the Enquiry Report was not served although required to be served on the delinquent in terms of the 2005 Rules, I have no option but to quash the punishment order dated 23rd March, 2007, Annexure-9 which is, accordingly, quashed. From the counter affidavit it, however, appears that along with the counter affidavit the report of the Enquiry Officer has been served on the counsel for the petitioner. Service of the Enquiry Report through the counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioner in these proceedings should be taken as service of the Enquiry Report on 4 the petitioner. Having quashed the punishment order, I direct the petitioner to file his show-cause reply before the disciplinary authority, namely the Joint Secretary of the Minor Irrigation Department within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and on such receipt of the show-cause reply the disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate final order in the matter in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within another two months from the date of receipt of the show-cause reply. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)