IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6812 of 2010 Krishna Mohan Jha, S/o Late Udit Narain Jha, R/o village Salaha (Sonapur), P.S. Nayagaon, District Begusarai, presently posted as Jail Clerk, Central Jail, Bhagalpur …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Prison) Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Prisons, Home (Prison) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, (Administration), Home (Prison) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Jamui. 7. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhagalpur…………………………………………………………..Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate For the State: A.C. to Standing Counsel No.18 2 17.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Against the first punishment order, petitioner had moved this Court in CWJC No. 11710 of 2001. The said writ application was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 06.07.2007, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ application. Learned Single Judge found that, in the inquiry, petitioner was exonerated of the charges, but the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment, after differing with the inquiry 2 report, without giving any second show cause notice to him. Therefore, punishment order was quashed by this Court. Respondents moved in appeal before a Division Bench through L.P.A. No.1080 of 2007. The said appeal was heard and disposed of by order dated 22.02.2008, as contained in Annexure-12. The Division Bench found that, though the order of punishment of the petitioner had been quashed on account of infraction of Principles of Natural Justice at the stage of the disciplinary authority, but no opportunity had been given to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh from the stage subsequent to the submission of the inquiry report. Therefore, while agreeing with the findings of the learned Single Judge, the appeal was dismissed, but with a liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter from the stage subsequent to submission of the inquiry report. Accordingly, as per liberty granted to the respondents, disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the inquiry 3 report. In the second show cause notice (Annexure-13), four grounds were mentioned for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within two weeks. Petitioner, accordingly, filed his reply (Annexure-14) in which he dealt with grounds of disagreement mentioned by the disciplinary authority in the second show cause notice. In his reply, petitioner, in reference to charge no.1, mentioned that on account of the Assistant Jailor’s proceeding on leave on 26.11.1998 for Headquarter, he was made incharge only of the office of the Assistant Jailor and another person, namely, Dwarika Singh, Head Warder, was made incharge of the prisoners. Hence charge that in the capacity of Assistant Jailor, he did not keep control on the visitors due to which on the gate of the jail there was a crowd which facilitated in fleeing away of the prisoners, cannot be saddled on him. It was specifically stated in the second show cause reply that since said Dwarika Singh had been made incharge of the prisoners, it was his duty to monitor the inflow of the 4 visitors and arrange the meeting of the prisoners with the visitors. In respect of other charges also, petitioner specifically gave his explanation in his reply. After receipt of the reply, punishment order, as contained in Annexure- 17, was passed by the disciplinary authority. From reading of Annexure-17 it appears that the same is a non-speaking order. Except mentioning that second show cause reply has been considered, nothing more has been stated in the order in respect of the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply in respect of the charges. It is only mentioned in the order that charge with regard to involvement of the petitioner in mismanagement of the visitors stands proved and, therefore, the order of punishment was passed. Petitioner thereafter filed his appeal before the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide Annexure-18. In his memorandum of appeal also, he took specific stand that as he was made incharge only of the office of the Assistant Jailor, he was not 5 responsible for managing the inflow of the visitors and monitor movements of the prisoners for their meeting with the visitors. However, the appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority, vide order as contained in Annexure-19. From the appellate order it appears that though the Appellate Authority has noticed the said ground of the petitioner that he was made incharge only of the office of the Assistant Jailor and Dwarika Singh was made incharge of the prisoners, the same has not been dealt with and considered. It is only observed in the appellate order that the petitioner in the capacity of the incharge Assistant Jailor, the management of the visitors was also his responsibility. Thus, it is apparent that though in terms of the liberty granted by the Division Bench, notice was given to the petitioner in respect of the grounds of difference, reply of the petitioner in respect of the same has not been considered by the disciplinary authority and grounds taken in the appeal have also not been considered by the Appellate Authority. 6 In the circumstances, this Court finds that the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure-17, and the order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-19, are non-speaking orders and the authorities have failed to consider reply of the petitioner filed to the second show cause notice and grounds taken therein as well as grounds taken in appeal. In view of the above facts and circumstances, punishment order as contained in Annexure-17 and the appellate order as contained in Annexure-19 are hereby quashed. The disciplinary authority is directed to consider the reply of the petitioner to the second show cause notice, deal with the grounds taken in the same in respect of each of the charges and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed to the extent, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)