IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7185 of 2001 RAM NIWAS SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 15.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2001 at Annexure-1, by which the punishment of censure withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and that nothing except subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension, has been imposed. Departmental proceedings were initiated on three charges. That he did not join the transferred place of posting, refusal to accept orders for handing over charge to his successor and failure to join the headquarters during the period of suspension. On conclusion of the departmental proceedings, orders of punishment like that passed presently were issued on 15.9.1995. The petitioner went in appeal and it was rejected on 17.3.1998. He came to this Court in CWJC No.5387 of 1998. By order dated 29.9.1999, this Court held that the enquiry was vitiated in law inasmuch as the Presenting Officer did not appear before the Inquiry Officer, no evidence was led. Nonetheless, the Inquiry Officer held the inquiry and concluded that the charges were proved. Holding that without discussion of evidence but only on the defence of the delinquent an order of punishment was not sustainable in law, the same was set aside with opportunity to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Fresh notices followed when the petitioner demanded the - 2 - documents on which the memo of charges were based and which he urged were never given to him. Neither was he furnished the evidence on which it was proposed to rely against him. Nonetheless, he submitted his reply to the fresh show cause notice. Fresh enquiry report dated 19.10.2000 followed when the petitioner has been given a second show cause notice leading to the fresh order of punishment. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. From the fresh enquiry report dated 19.10.2000, it does not appear that the memo of charges or the evidence in support of the same was made available to the petitioner. Again there is no discussion of the evidence led by the Presenting Officer, if he was examined during the enquiry, and other witnesses were examined and the documents which the Presenting Officer placed before the Enquiry Officer. This was a sine qua non as the prosecution had to prove its own case quite distinct from the defence that the petitioner may have taken. The enquiry report is again based on the defence statement only. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not contend that any regular departmental proceeding by leading evidence, production of documents, opportunity to cross-examine etc. were followed. From the reply to the second show cause notice, filed by the petitioner on 20.1.2001 this Court is satisfied that the petitioner - 3 - had denied the charges against him. It was for the prosecution to then prove the charges to justify the order of punishment. The order of punishment does not deal with the grounds raised in the second show cause notice, more particularly the issue of non-supply of documents also raised therein. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that fresh order of punishment dated 20.3.2001 is in like manner vitiated as the earlier order of punishment inasmuch as there has been no departmental enquiry in law so as to enable this Court to hold that the petitioner had adequate opportunity to defend himself requiring no interference with the orders of punishment. The petitioner is said to have superannuated on 30th of January,1998. There are no serious allegations of financial irregularities, causing revenue loss to the Government etc. This Court, is therefore, not persuaded to pass orders for remand as the respondents have had more than sufficient opportunity to act in accordance with law vis-à-vis the petitioner which they had chosen not to do. The writ application is allowed. The order of punishment dated 20.3.2001 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to full salary for the period of suspension to be paid within a period of three months from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. HR ( Navin Sinha )