IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4457 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Islam, Son of Late Md. Safique, resident of village- Sakri Saraiya, P.S.- Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Principal Secretary Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Under Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Joint Director, Agriculture Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 6. Regional Dy. Director, Agriculture Motihari. 7. District Agriculture Officer, Sitamarhi. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 3 18-10-2011 Annexure 5 is the order dated 27th September, 2010 by virtue of which the so called minor punishment of censure as well as recovery of Rs. 2,25,780/- (Two lakh twenty five thousand seven hundred eighty) has been imposed upon the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Bihar Government Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rule, 2005. Brief facts are that the petitioner was posted as Sub- Divisional Agricultural Officer at Sitamarhi in the Kharif season of 2009. He had a duty cast upon him to sow paddy in Parihar and Balaha area, which fell within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. Petitioner is supposed to have cultivated paddy in 6 and 7.5 hectares of land respectively and in this regard he spent a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-and 1,50,000/-. However the total output from the farms added up to Rs. 36,410/- and Rs.7,810/- only. This huge loss 2 in revenue compelled the authorities to initiate some kind of action against the petitioner and as part of the said exercise, petitioner was issued a show cause in terms of Annexure 3. Petitioner filed his response by virtue of Annexure 4 but without considering the same, order of punishment contained in Annexure 5, has been issued, which is under challenge in the present writ application. Submission of the counsel is that a bare reading of the order of punishment would show that there has been no application of mind to the issue as there is no reflection in the order that the show cause of the petitioner contained in Annexure 4 or the ground urged therein has been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. There is a mechanical application of mathematical calculation for working out the loss and liability has been saddled upon the petitioner with direction for recovery. Not only this, it is also urged that there is circumstances to show as to why the total output of the paddy crops in that area was affected which is related not only to late sowing but also flooding in the area by the rivers of Nepal. None of these aspects came to be considered, therefore, the order of punishment is vitiated. Stand of the State is that there was an obligation upon the petitioner and if there is a failure to perform then under Rule 3 14 of the C.C.A. Rules, authorities have power of imposition of minor punishment. Recovery also falls within the ambit of Rule 14. Whatever be the stand of the State one thing which clearly emerges or is evident from the order of punishment is that there is no reflection with regard to the explanation offered by the petitioner or supporting materials which he had annexed with the show cause. Not only this, another aspect which does arise for consideration is that under Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules it is not a thumb rule that mere show cause followed by explanation is sufficient for imposing punishment even if it is of a minor kind. Rule 19(1)(b) does envisage holding of or enquiry in a manner laid down in Sub Rule (3) to 23 of Rule 17 even in matters of imposition of minor punishment. In other words, there could be situation where an enquiry of the kind above is called for by adopting the procedure laid down even in case of imposition of minor punishment as well. The Court is of the opinion that non-consideration of the explanation of the petitioner coupled with the fact that this could be one of the cases where a proper enquiry should have been held, before imposition of punishment of recovery to the tune of Rs. 2,25,780/- was ordered. None adherence to such procedure, 4 therefore, has caused prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. There could be an occasion to interfere with the order of punishment at least with regard to the recovery part. Annexure 5 is quashed, matter however is remitted back to the disciplinary authorities that they should consider setting up a proper enquiry after issuance of a charge-sheet to the petitioner on the issue. Based on the outcome thereof a decision should be taken with regard to kind of punishment should be imposed on petitioner. A summary kind of procedure adopted in the present case may not do in the given facts and circumstances. Writ is allowed to the extent indicated above. Bhardwaj/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)