IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.314 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 23/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, an extra clerk in the office of the District Sub-Registrar at Bhagalpur was suspended and subjected to departmental proceedings. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 31.7.2003. He exonerated the petitioner of the charges. An order of punishment stopping three increments with cumulative effect and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance will be payable for the period of suspension has then been passed by the Secretary-cum-Registrar General, Registration on 8.10.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no second show cause notice for a difference of opinion with the enquiry report along with the tentative grounds in support of the same with prima facie materials and opportunity to defend was given rendering the impugned order bad in law. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents affirmed by the District Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur. Paragraph-8 of the same acknowledges that 2 the petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry. But, that the disciplinary authority upon review of the findings of the enquiry officer was not satisfied with the exoneration. That no further notice to the petitioner was necessary and that the disciplinary authority was not bound to agree with the findings of the enquiry report. There can be no two opinions that the report of the enquiry officer does not bind the disciplinary authority. But, the manner in which the disciplinary authority is required to proceed thereafter is by now too well settled by authoritative judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court and which also found due incorporation in administrative guidelines and circulars of the State Government regulating the procedures and manner for holding a departmental enquiry. The counter affidavit by a government servant is not only contrary to the guidelines laid down by the State Government for conduct of departmental proceedings, but is also in teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. The counter affidavit is wholly frivolous reflecting casualness of approach difficult to countenance by this Court. The result has been a wholly unnecessary writ petition burdening the Court. 3 In normal circumstances, the Court would have set aside the order of punishment and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of the enquiry report. The conduct of the respondents of the stand taken by them in a proceeding before this Court, on oath, does not persuade the Court to pass any such orders. The impugned order of punishment dated 8.10.2003 is accordingly set aside. If the respondents propose to proceed afresh from the stage of the defect in the departmental proceeding i.e. the submission of the enquiry report, they shall simultaneously be obliged to start a departmental proceeding against those who took such a frivolous stand before this Court contrary to well settled law wasting the financial resources of the State Government in attempt to defend an indefensible stand and having wasted the time of the Court. Perhaps, the present is a fit case to be referred to the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar to examine the manner in which the officials of the State appear to be functioning even today notwithstanding the framing of the State Litigation Policy. The Court would have expected that in view of the State Litigation Policy published on 31.3.2011 that indefensible case shall not be 4 mechanically defended, the respondents would have been more circumspect in their approach. The impugned order 8.10.2003 dated is set aside. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)