IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1675 of 2010 1. RAM JANAM BHAKTA S/O LATE RAMDAYAL BHAKTA R/O VILL+P.O.MANPUR,P.S.DIGHWARA,DISTT-CHAPRA,PRESENTLY WORKING AS "MAPAK" IN THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOSHI PROJECT , SAKRI MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR,NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION , WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION-CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER GANDAK PROJECT, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjay Kumar Verma,Advocate For the State : JC to SC 17 ------ 2. 30.07.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 3.9.2008 as upheld by the appellate order dated 1.12.2008. It visits him with the punishment of:- (a) Nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension but which shall otherwise be counted for the purpose of pension; (b) Stoppage of all promotions; (c) Stoppage of three increments with non cumulative effect and reverting him to a lower pay scale. Learned Counsel for the petitioner from the enquiry report dated 14.12.2007 submits that the petitioner was exonerated of the first two charges. On the third charge, there is no finding of guilt but only suspicion noticing that the petitioner cannot be held answerable for cutting of the trees. It is next submitted that the disciplinary authority could have differed with the report of exoneration, furnished the grounds for such difference of opinion to the petitioner, permitted him to submit his defence and then pass orders of punishment. That not having been done, the entire punishment stands vitiated. For the same reason the appellate order is also not sustainable. Learned Counsel for the State from the order of punishment and the appellate order is unable to demonstrate that any show cause notice was given to the petitioner for a difference of opinion on the two exonerated charges and that he did not furnish any reply or that if he did furnish a reply it was considered. This Court therefore has no hesitation in holding that the punishment under charge nos. 1 and 2 is wholly unsustainable. In so far as charge no. 3 is concerned, it states that the trees were not in charge of any one and was therefore liable to be cut down by any person or dry up. It proceeds to fix responsibility on the petitioner on suspicion only. The law stands well settled that suspicion cannot replace proof. In absence of any discussion in the enquiry report of the materials on which suspicion was based it becomes purely speculative and unfounded. The order of punishment dated 3.9.2008 and the appellate order dated 1.12.2008 are therefore wholly not sustainable. They are accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)