IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6484 of 1999 Raj Karan Singh, son of late Mishri Singh, resident of village Bagodar, P.S. Hasua, District Nawada at present working as Assistant Teacher, in Primary School, Powa at Factdpore, District Gaya … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Headmaster, Primary School, Pawa at Fatehpore, District Gaya 3. The District Education Establishment Committee through its Chairman, the District Magistrate of Gaya 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya 5. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya … Respondents ----------- 4. 27.7.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application the petitioner has assailed the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure 4, dated 31.12.1995 and the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 6.5.1999 on the ground that even when the charges against the petitioner were not found to be proved in course of enquiry, the disciplinary authority had inflicted punishment of depriving the petitioner payment of salary for the period of suspension in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the State has taken a plea as also asserted in the counter 2 affidavit that the Enquiry Officer in fact had never exonerated the petitioner from the charge, rather his view was confined that such absence of the petitioner from duty during the course of inspection of the superior officer was not deliberate. Counsel for the State, therefore, would submit that the absence of the petitioner from duty was at least proved. In the considered opinion of this Court the order of punishment has to be passed by following the procedure laid down in the Rules. Admittedly a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the charge of his absence from duty and the Enquiry Officer had not found such charge to have been proved, inasmuch as he had held that:- ^^bl vkjksi ds laca/k esa tks tkap fd;k ftlesa fuEufyf[kr rF; lkeus vk;ka 1- f'k{kd mifLFkfr iath ns[ksu ls irk pyk fd lgk;d f'k{kd jh jktdj.k flag ds f'k{kdksifLFkfr iath ds dkWye esa fnukad 7-5-95 dks vkdLehd vodk'k fy[kk gqvk gSA blds laca/k esa esa iz0 f'k0 ls iwNus ij irk pyk fd Jh flag 7-5-95 dks vki vodk'k esa FksA vkdfLed vodk'k dk vkosnu i= ekaxus ij mUgksus crk;k fd fujh{k.k djus okys tks inkf/kdkjh vk;s Fks vius lkFk ys x;s vkSj Jh jktdj.k flag }kjk fnukad 8-5-95 ,oa 9-5-95 vk vk0 vodk'k dk vkosnu i= fn[kyk;k vkSj dgk fd ;g vkosnu i= Mkdds }kjk 9-5-95 dks izkIr gqvk ftldh Nk;kizfr lqyHk gsrq layXu fd;k tk jgk gSA vkjksi la[;k&2 ds laca/k xzke iksok ds xzkeh.kksa ds lEidZ djus ij Jh vjfoUn dqekj flag] Jh f'koukjk;.k flag] Jh bUnznso flag] Jh jkekuqt flag ,oa Jh txyky pkS/kjh ds fefJr izfrfdz;k;sa gqbZ ftlls Li"V gqvk fd iz0 f'k0 Jh gfj flag ,oa l0 f'k0 Jh jktdj.k flag dbZ o"kksaZ ls fo|ky; esa inLFkkfir gS ftudk LFkkukUrj.k vR;ar vko';d gS ftlls fo|ky; esa u;k 3 okrkoj.k gks tkus ls iBu ikBu dk lEiknu Hkyh Hkkafr gks ldsA tkap ds dze esa ik;s x;s vfHkys[k ,oa xzkeh.kksa ds lk{; ds vk/kkj ij Jh jktdj.k flag tku cq>dj fo|ky; ls vuqifLFkr ugha FksA vr% izkFkfed fo|ky; iksok] vapy Qrsgiqj ds l0 f'k0 Jh jktdj.k flag dks fuyacu ls eqDr ,oa LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA** The aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer had not held the petitioner guilty of the charge and yet if the disciplinary authority wanted to inflict punishment on the petitioner he had to follow the principles of natural justice by issuing show cause notice and giving reasons for deferring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report. In this regard the law has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84. That having been not done the petitioner could not have been subjected to punishment and consequently the order of punishment so far it relates to withholding of salary for the period of suspension of the petitioner is hereby set aside. The appellate order being also without considering the aforesaid aspect and going into the merits of charge as if the 4 Commissioner was himself conducting the enquiry cannot be approved and the appellate order, contained in Annexure 7, is also quashed. Considering the nature of charge and long suffering of the petitioner ever since 1995, this Court would not give liberty to the respondents to now wreck up the matter involved in the subject matter of this writ application. The petitioner’s salary for the period of suspension withheld under the order dated 31.12.1995 should be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This application is, accordingly, allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/