IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3521 of 2003 HARIBANSH PRASAD SINGH, son of late Ganpati Singh, resident of village- Sardiha, P.S. Simri Bakhtiarpur, District- Saharsa. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, (Secondary Education), Human Resources (Development) Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources (Development) Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 4. The District Education Officer, Madhepura. … Respondents. ----------- 6. 20.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner made in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i) To set aside the office order contained in Memo No. 80 dated 17th of January 2003, issued under the signature of respondent-Director by which, pursuant to a departmental proceeding initiated against him while the petitioner was in service, the following punishment have been awarded to him:- (a) Petitioner will not be entitled to get anything except the subsistence allowance for the period undergone by him in suspension; (b) An amount of Rs.83,899 is to be recovered along with interest from the retrial dues of the petitioner towards the payment of salary of one fictitious teacher. (ii) The petitioner further prays for restraining the respondents from making any recovery from the 2 retrial dues of the petitioner considering the fact that before awarding the punishment to him, the respondents did not either serve the copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner nor was he asked to submit his how cause in his defence with respect to the proposed punishment as stated above.” This Court on an earlier occasion had directed the respondents to file counter affidavit specifically on the issue of supply of enquiry report. Though a counter affidavit has been filed, but there is no explanation with regard to supply of enquiry report and the counsel for the State has produced the original record of departmental proceeding of the petitioner as well as Smt. Madhuri Jaiswal, the then Headmistress of Rasbihari Uchha Vidyalay, Madhepura, from which it becomes clear that the copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before inflicting the order of punishment. Taking into account the admitted position that the petitioner though subjected to a departmental proceeding was eventually punished after his retirement from service by seeking to recover the loss sustained to the Government on account of alleged misconduct 3 committed by the petitioner without supplying enquiry report, this court only on the aforementioned ground would quash the order of punishment and remit the matter back to the Director, Secondary Education for starting the departmental proceeding de novo from the stage of submission of enquiry report. The Director, Secondary Education will serve a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner along with a second show-cause, whereafter it will be open to the petitioner to take all possible defence including the one vehemently argued before this Court that if the Government had exonerated Smt. Madhuri Jaiswal, the then Headmistress of Rasbihari Uchha Vidyalay, Madhepura and Drawing and Disbursing Officer who had actually made payment of salary to one Santram Singh, the alleged teacher whose appointment was based on forged appointment letter, the petitioner could not have been discriminated even in the matter of award of punishment for the same misconduct. While this Court would not like to pre-judge the issue but then it would definitely observe that the Disciplinary Authority will always have to maintain a common parameter and uniform standard in inflicting punishment 4 as with regard to same or similar misconduct alleged against more than one person. That being so, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order as contained in Annexure- 1 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Director, Secondary Education, Disciplinary Authority to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. As the petitioner has already retired, such exercise must be completed preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is allowed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)