IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6000 of 2010 1. MUMUKSHU KUMAR CHAUDHARY S/O LATE JAGDISH CHAUDHARY PERMANENT R/O VILL.- PALATPURA, P.O.- PALATPURA, P.S.- MANPUR, DISTT.- NALANDA, EARLIER POSTED AS BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK GOVINDPUR, DISTT.- NAWADA, PRESENTLY UNDER SUSPENSION HAVING HEADQUARTER AT OFFICER OF DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, SARAN (BIHAR) …… PETITIOENR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWADA 7. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 9. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 10. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 11. THE SECTION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 02 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhirendra Kumar Jha, A.C. to S.C.-19 on behalf of the State. Sri Jha submits that instructions have been received. In view of the nature of the order to be passed, this Court does not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter for filing of a counter affidavit and is satisfied that the matter can be disposed off on basis 2 of the submissions made by Sri Jha in turn from the instructions received. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.1.2009. A departmental proceeding was held under three heads of charges. The petitioner has claimed to have filed his reply to the charges also. The writ petition filed on 6.4.2010 asserts at paragraph-32 that no Enquiry Officer had been appointed till date and therefore there was no progress in the departmental proceedings at all, though suspension continues. Strong reliance is placed on a Government Circular dated 28.2.2007 to urge that the time limit fixed thereunder for conclusion of a departmental proceeding was six months. This has to be computed from the date memo of charge was issued or at best the petitioner’s reply was filed both of which have long since expired. Sri Jha appearing for the State submits that he has received instructions, that after the institution of the writ application an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. Sri P.N. Sahi, appearing for the petitioner submits that after appointment of the Enquiry Officer only one date was fixed and the matter adjourned not at the behest of the petitioner. 3 Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to make any further submissions from the instruction received of any delay in proceedings being attributable to the petitioner. If the Government has framed an administrative circular, they are required to be adhered too and followed unless there be valid justification for deviation from the same. This Court has gone through the three charges. There are no serious allegations of embezzlement or defalcation. They pertain more to matters of procedure and alleged demand for illegal gratification. Failing to confirm to administrative circulars without valid justification may amount to arbitrary exercise of powers. Such circulars are to be adhered too but not at whims and fancies and uniformly. Since the matter is being disposed without a counter affidavit, this Court considers it prudent to direct that the petitioner may apply for revocation of suspension along with a copy of the present order. The competent authority is then required to decide the application for revocation in light of the present discussion and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of 4 receipt/production of a copy of such representation. Needless to state that if the authority is satisfied that the fault for delay in the proceedings does not lie at the door of the petitioner, it is expected that appropriate orders in accordance with law shall be passed in accordance with present discussion. The petitioner has also asserted that he has not been paid the enhanced subsistence allowance after expiry of one year of the suspension. Under Rule 10 of the C.C.A. Rules, it is the statutory obligation of the disciplinary authority to pass an appropriate order for enhancement. The statute no were provides that the petitioner is required to initiate the process. He is at best answerable to furnish the requisite certificate. The demand for the certificate has to be made by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner shall be at liberty to claim interest on any such enhanced subsistence allowance not paid to him. It is expected that such enhanced allowance with interest shall be paid to him in accordance with law within the same period mentioned above. This Court directs the departmental proceedings to be completed within a maximum period of six weeks from today. This time period is subject to 5 due co-operation from the petitioner. If the competent authority is satisfied that the petitioner was not co- operating, he shall be at liberty to proceed ex-parte also, if necessary, but only after recording his full satisfaction of the efforts made to enable the petitioner to co-operate and refusal of the petitioner to do so, and in this manner pass an ex-parte enquiry report also within the same period. If the enquiry is not concluded within the period of six months in the manner aforesaid, the respondents are precluded from proceeding further in the departmental enquiry. The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)