IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3507 of 2010 1. NISHITH KUMAR S/O SRI SHRIDEO KUMAR RESIDING AT 202,NEHRU NAGAR,PATLIPUTRA COLONY, PATNA,PRESENTLY WORKING AS COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, KISHANGANJ CIRCLE, KISHANGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAXES,BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) COMMERCIAL TAXES PURNIA DIVISION,PURNIA 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KISHANGANJ CIRCLE,KISHANGANJ 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES,KISHANGANJ,CIRCLE,KISHANGANJ 6. THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER BIHAR,PATNA ----------- 2/ 16/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. IA No. 7675 of 2010 has been filed for amendment challenging the fresh order of punishment dated 27.04.10, issued during the pendency of the application. Having heard counsel for the parties, IA application is allowed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 27.04.10 which visits the petitioner with the punishment of censure to be entered in his character rolls for the year 2007-08 and stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. Since, the writ petition can be disposed off on a pure question of law, the court does not consider it necessary to go into other aspects at this stage. All other 2 issues are left open for consideration at the appropriate stage. For alleged unauthorized absence a show cause notice was given on 27.12.07, duly replied. Another notice followed, duly replied, when an order of punishment dated 26.09.08 for 'censure' to be entered in the character rolls for the year 2007-08 and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was passed. It is not in controversy that before imposition of a major punishment no departmental inquiry in accordance with law was held by framing of charges leading evidence, oral and documentary, with opportunity to defend etc. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that if the original order of punishment dated 26.09.08 was illegal, the question of its ratification, validation and/or modification by a minor punishment subsequently does not arise. Counsel for the State submits that the punishment being ultimately minor in nature, and a show cause notice having admittedly been issued and considered, this court may not interfere in the matter. The short question of law for adjudication by the court is whether the initial order was legally sustainable or not. If it was not, this court is satisfied that the order could not have been modified and or varied 3 subsequently. The illegality operates from the nativity. In AIR 1976 SC 2095 (Fareed Ahmad Abdul Samad Versus Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Another), the acquisition proceeding was concluded in violation of the statutory procedure for personal hearing and the Standing Committee considered only the written objections before approving the order of compulsory acquisition. The State Government confirmed it. It was held that an order invalid at its inception, the invalidity cannot be cured by subsequent approval by the committee concerned or even confirmation by the State Government. The order of punishment dated 26.09.08 being invalid at its inception, the subsequent order dated 27.04.10 automatically becomes unsustainable in law. The order dated 27.04.10 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 2 for a fresh decision in accordance with law preferably within a maximum period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)