IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6271 of 2010 1. Ran Vijay Umesh Kumar Singh, S/O Late Brahmdeo Narayan Singh, R/O Village - B- 118a, Budha Colony, P.S. - Budha Colony , District - Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Co- Operative Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Conducting Officer-Cum-The Joint Registrar, C.S. Saran Division, Chapra. 3/ 13/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 17.2.2009 imposing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and that only subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents asked for during enquiry were not given to the petitioner. The enquiry report was also not furnished. The Appeal against the order of punishment has been dismissed for non-prosecution despite a valid reason for absence of his counsel due to illness. The appellate order dated 16.7.2009 may therefore be set aside and the matter remanded to the appellate authority to hear the parties afresh. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order urging that it required no interference. 2 The petitioner was suspended on 28.1.2008 and a memo of two charges served upon him on grounds of (a) unauthorized absence and (b) failure to discharge duties properly during the process of the Cooperative elections as detailed in the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same. An enquiry report of guilt came to be submitted. The Court finds from the order of punishment that the petitioner did submit his reply to the second show cause notice. The question whether the enquiry report was given to him or not and whether he has been prejudiced in any manner need not be gone into in view of the recitals contained in the impugned order that in reply to the second show cause notice he took the stand on charge-2 that the errors were not intentional. Insofar as charge-1 is concerned, once the unauthorized absence has been proved, the Court cannot go into re- assessment of evidence with regard to the same. A copy of the memo of appeal has also been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. Having gone through the same the Court does not find any allegation of procedural infirmity in the departmental proceeding warranting interference. Once the petitioner has acknowledged the mistakes, but took the defence that they were trivial in 3 nature, charge-2 stood admitted. If a charge stands admitted, nothing need be proved and any infirmities of procedure become irrelevant as held in (2009) 10 SCC 32 (Biecco Lawrie Limited v. State of West Bengal) at para-44:- “44. In the present case, in the letter dated 22-11-1985, the respondent had admitted all the charges and had stated unequivocally that his behaviour was due to mental sickness and prayed for sympathy and mercy. This along with the fact that the respondent was earlier charged on similar grounds and dismissed but, on his request, was exonerated and given a chance to amend his conduct also goes a long way to project the fact that observance of the principles of natural justice would be merely a useless formality since he had admitted the charges against him.” Reference may also be made to Section-58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that facts admitted need not be proved. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no useful purpose is going to be served by remanding matters to the appellate authority as the result before it is also a foregone conclusion. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of punishment dated 17.2.2009. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)