IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15387 of 2010 CHANDRA KISHORE YADAV, SON OF LATE JAGDISH YADAV, PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- RAJIV NAGAR, ROAD NO. 24, P.S.- RAJIV NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PATHYA PUSTAK BHAWAN, BUDH MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA- 800 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION, PATHYA PUSTAK BHAWAN, BUDH MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA- 800 001 3. THE REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION, PATHYA PUSTAK BHAWAN, BUDH MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA- 800 001 4. THE MANAGER, (OFFICE AND ADMN.) BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUBLISHING CORPORATION, PATHYA PUSTAK BHAWAN, BUDH MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA- 800 001 :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 15.09.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). 2. Petitioner is serving the Corporation as Class-III employee. He is aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2009 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation (Annexure-8), whereunder after considering the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner his three increments have been reduced with further direction that he shall not be paid salary beyond the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Against the punishment order petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation which was dismissed observing that punishment imposed is not required to 2 be interfered with. The operative portion of the punishment order has been communicated to the petitioner under letter no. 709 dated 30.7.2010 issued by the Secretary of the Corporation and is contained in Annexure-11 to this application. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner it would appear that petitioner has been proceeded against for delay caused in issue of challan which resulted in delayed supply of books by the printer. It is further submitted that in terms of the agreement entered into by and between the Corporation and the Printer the duty assigned to the petitioner was to issue challan as and when the books were ready for being transported to the destination. For the delay caused by the printer in transporting the books petitioner cannot be punished. 4. Counsel for the Corporation disputes the aforesaid submission. He states that petitioner was entrusted with the duty to issue challan after the books were made ready for dispatch to the destination by placing the same on the trucks. 5. Rival contention, as noted above is required to be considered by the appellate authority along with the submission that the petitioner has been singled out 3 solely because one of the printers attached to the petitioner for the purpose of issue of challan after the books were ready for dispatch is found to have submitted forged bank guarantee, as is evident from the order dated 14.2.2009, Annexure-9. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Corporation, I set aside the appellate order communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 30.7.2010, Annexure-11 and direct the Chairman of the Corporation to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner in the light of the submissions noted above in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner is also granted liberty to file supplementary memo of appeal annexing a copy of my order. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)