IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13692 of 2006 Hardeo Pandey, son of late Shyam Nath Pandey, incharge Headmaster, Primary School, Durgapur, P.O.+P.S. Manjhi, District Saran C/o Ravi Ranjan Singh, West of Rana Cold Storage, Sarha Housing Colony, P.O. Sarha, P.S. Chapra, Dist. Saran. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saran, Chapra. 6. District Superintendent of Education, Saran, Chapra. 7. Block Education, Extension Officer, Manjhi, At+P.O.+P.S. Manjhi, Dist. Saran. 8. Block Education Extension Officer, Jalalpur cum Enquiry Officer, At+P.O.+P.S. Jalalpur, Dist. Saran. 9. Ramjeet Ram, son of name not known to the petitioner, resident of Village Manigatchi Dakschin Tola, P.O.+P.s. Manjhi, District Saran, presently workingas Panchayat Sikscha Mitra, Primary School Durgapur, Manjhi, Saran. ---------- Respondents ----------- 3 5.7.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioner has been visited with major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect as also non-payment of salary for the period of suspension beyond subsistence allowance this Court is of the considered opinion that the same can not be sustained either on fact or in law in absence of properly framed and conducted departmental proceeding. From reading of the enquiry report containing following observations of the 2 enquiry officer:- ^^6- tkWp dk fooj.k & mDr vkjksi ls lacaf/kr ekeyk U;k;ky; ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr tutkfr vk;ksx esa yafcr gSA Jh ikaMs }kjk Jh jkethr jke ds lkFk mDr vkjksiksa dh iqf"V djrs gq, eqf[k;k }kjk Jh jke dk LFkkukUrj.k izk0fo0 nqxkZiqj ¼ekW>h½ ls izk0 laLd`r f'k{kd Jh ikaMs }kjk 13-3-05 dks izfrosnu fd;k x;k Fkk fd Jh jke nqxkZiqj esa dk;Zjr gS tc fd Jh jke izk0la0 ikB'kkyk ekW>h esa dk;Zjr FksA Jh ikaMs }kjk izfrosnu fd;k x;k Fkk fd Jh jke }kjk yxk, x;s vkjksi cscqfu;kn ,oa eux<ar gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh dgk x;k Fkk fd Hkfo"; esa Jh jke ds lkFk lnO;ogkj dk opu nsrk gwWA Jh gjnso ikaMs ,oa Jh jkethr jke & nksuks i{kksa ds fyf[kr c;ku ,oa lk{;ksa ls /kVuk lR; izrhr gksrk gSA vr% vko';d dk;kZFkZ Jheku dh lsok esa lefiZr fd;k tkrk gSA** it becomes clear that the enquiry officer had submitted his findings holding the charges against the petitioner proved without conducting the departmental proceeding in a prescribed manner and infact merely on the appraisal of the written statement submitted by the petitioner had the complainant Ramjit Ram. Admittedly no evidence on behalf of department was adduced in such departmental proceeding nor even the petitioner was given opportunity to lead evidence in his defence. Such procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer infact was meant for inflicting a minor punishment under Rule 3 55A of Bihar Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules and not one which ought to have been under Rule 55 thereof. In fact, the disciplinary authority himself had found such approach of the enquiry officer to be wholly perfunctory and he too had thus recorded that:- ^^¼VI½ lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu ds voyksdu ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd u rks ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd vkSu u gh muds v/khuLr inkf/kdkjh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu dh izfdz;k ls fHkK gSA mUgsa funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd lekgj.kky; ;k ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ds v/khu foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu gsrq la/kkfjr vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu djsa vkSj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh izfdz;k ,oa vfHkys[k la/kkj.k dh izfdz;k ls os Lo;a Hkh voxr gks vkSj vius v/khuLr inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh voxr djk;saA** It would thus be clear that the disciplinary authority himself was not satisfied with the manner in which the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was conducted. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to sustain the order of punishment which is absolutely in teeth of relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules prescribing an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and considering his defence in the light of the evidence adduced by the department to prove its charges. From the reading of 4 Enquiry Report and the findings of the enquiry officer it is well established that no such procedure was ever undergone. The Enquiry Officer in fact had refused to go into the merit of the charge by recording that since the subject matter of memo of charge in the departmental proceeding was itself subjudice before the competent criminal court as also before the Bihar Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission, he had only examined the respective written statement of the parties for recording his finding. It would, therefore, be clear that the enquiry officer has also not applied himself to the merit of the allegation nor he has even referred to any evidence adduced before him for proving the charge of misbehavior by the petitioner against the Shiksha Mitra belonging to the scheduled caste community. Considering all these aspects, this Court would find it difficult to sustain the order of punishment. This Court could have normally remitted the matter back to the enquiry officer to proceed afresh against the petitioner but, 5 taking into account that the petitioner has now already attained the age of superannuation, no such liberty can now be given to the department to proceed afresh against the petitioner. That being so, this application is allowed. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-19, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to restore all consequential benefit to the petitioner which could have become available to him in his service period, had such order of punishment been not passed against him. There would be, however, no order as to costs. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)