IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12317 of 2003 RAM SAKAL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 25/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings while in service, converted into one under Section-43B of the Pension Rules after his superannuation when the order of punishment dated 13.8.2001 has followed withholding 5% of his pension permanently and recovery of Rs.31,000.00 from him. The enquiry report has been brought on record by the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit. The petitioner has been absolved of charges-3, 4 and 5. Charge 1 and 2 have been held to be minor misdemeanours. The impugned order of punishment dated 13.8.2001 is a composite order and does not disclose that the punishment is based on the findings of partial guilt in the two charges only. This Court on 30.4.2004 has already noticed the controversy that without the charges being established, without assigning any reasons for 2 difference of opinion and furnishing copy of the enquiry report, the impugned order has been passed. If the impugned order is a composite order and considers the punishment conjointly putting at par the finding of guilt and exoneration, and it is not possible to bifurcate the impugned order to uphold the good part of it even while setting aside the rest, the entire order has to go. In AIR 1966 S.C. 951 ( R. Jeevratnam v. State of Madras) it has been held that where an order is severable, that part of the order which can be sustained may be given full effect. This does not appear possible from the present composite order. Since the order of punishment also takes into consideration the three charges of which the petitioner had been exonerated without giving him a show cause notice for difference of opinion, it is not sustainable. Additionally, failure to furnish the enquiry report before punishment further vitiates the impugned order. The order of punishment dated 13.8.2001 is accordingly set aside. This Court is not persuaded to remand the matter back to the authorities, as suggested on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar. The Supreme Court in (2005) 3 SCC 501 (RAM DAYAL RAI Versus 3 JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OHERS) considering a punishment with regard to 5% of pension has held that it is a very serious matter for a person in the evening of his life when he has no other source of income apart from his pension. The petitioner is stated to have retired on 30.9.1995. The order of punishment is dated 13.8.2001. The writ petition has remained pending before this Court for nearly seven years. In the nature of the punishment imposed, this Court is satisfied that it shall not be in the interest of justice to subject the petitioner to the vagaries of a protracted proceeding especially in the nature of the enquiry report. This Court, therefore, declines to remand the matter to enable the petitioner be in solitude. Let the consequential benefits be made available to the petitioner within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)