IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.952 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11224 of 2006 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar son of Late Ram Babu Mahto, resident of Mohalla- Math Laxamanpur Koiritolla, P.S.- Alamganj, Post- Gulzarbagh, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal, Government Women’s College, Gulzarbagh Patna, District Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, S.C. 24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 25-07-2011 With the consent of the learned advocates, this appeal is heard and decided today. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order Patna High Court LPA No.952 of 2011 (5) dt.25-07-2011 2 dated 2nd May 2011 passed by the learned single judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 11224 of 2006. The appellant, a class-IV servant employed in Government Women’s College, Gulzarbagh, Patna, filed above C.W.J.C. No. 11224 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of punishment of withholding of two increments and censure be entered in his service record made by the Director, High Education, Bihar on 27th March 1995. According to the appellant, the aforesaid punishment has been imposed upon the appellant without following due process of law. Though the order was made as early as on 27th March 1995 in respect of an incidence of September 1992, the same was not served upon the appellant until after 8th May 2001. After receipt of the order, the appellant approached the respondent authorities time and again but to no avail. Therefore, the writ petition. The writ petition was contested by the respondent no. 4, the Principal of the College. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal of the College, the impugned punishment had been imposed upon the appellant after following due process of law and after giving him a notice to show cause. The said affidavit also states “there was no need to serve the show cause notice to the petitioner because action of the petitioner was most heinous and irresponsible.” The learned single judge has relied upon the aforesaid Patna High Court LPA No.952 of 2011 (5) dt.25-07-2011 3 counter-affidavit made by the Principal of the College and the show cause notice issued to the appellant. In view of the charges found proved and the minor punishment imposed upon the appellant, the writ petition has been dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Kumar Alok has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned order of punishment was made without following due process of law. The order was made by the Director, Higher Education on 27th March 1995. At the relevant time the appellant was posted in the office of Director, Higher Education. Nevertheless, the order was not served upon him until he was repatriated to the respondent no.4 college in May 2001. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal has appeared for the respondents. He has submitted that the appellant was called upon to explain his conduct in making report to the police about some suspicious person present in the college campus. He has submitted that some statements were also recorded in course of enquiry. Thus, proper procedure has been followed. We are unable to agree with Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal. Evidently, calling for explanation and recording of statements were in course of preliminary enquiry. No charge sheet had ever been issued or served upon the appellant. No proper enquiry had been conducted. No enquiry proceedings are produced before us. Patna High Court LPA No.952 of 2011 (5) dt.25-07-2011 4 The allegation that the order of punishment was not served upon the appellant until after 8th May 2001 is not even denied. On the contrary the Principal of the College has made a categorical statement that the show cause was not required to be served upon the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Mandal has also not been able to demonstrate that the impugned order has been implemented. In our view, the impugned order of punishment made without following due process of law cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by the learned single judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 11224 of 2006 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 11224 of 2006 is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 27th March 1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The legal consequences shall follow. The parties will bear their own cost. BTiwary/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)