IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 16489 of 2004 KRISHANDEO SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the State: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, GP-15 ***** 06. 14.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order, contained in Memo No. 987 (Establishment), Siwan, dated 20th November, 2004, issued by the Deputy Collector, Siwan in a Departmental Proceeding, conducted against the petitioner. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s increment in pay scale has completely been stopped and he is directed to be treated as an employee in the original category. Further, it has been directed that he will never work in Revenue side in future. All these punishments have been directed to be recorded in his Service Book. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the consequential order, contained in Memo No. 439, dated 03.12.2004, issued by the Circle Officer, asking the petitioner to hand over charge of Revenue Karamchari. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Respondent Authorities for refund 2 of Rs. 1220/-, which has wrongly been deducted for the purpose of unauthorized absence. The impugned orders of punishment have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that without following the procedure for conducting a Departmental Proceeding, as per rule, proceeding was concluded. The punishment awarded, is alleged to be disproportionate to the charges, framed against the petitioner. In support of allegation, it has been stated by the petitioner that documents, which were necessary for filing an effective show-cause, was not supplied to him, despite the fact that he asked for the same and a direction was also issued by the High Court in the earlier Writ Application, filed by the petitioner for the same. It has also been stated that the punishment order regarding stoppage of increment for his further service career is also against the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter no. 3/M-46/2004 (Personnel)-3644, dated 30.04.2005 (Annexure-12), through which it has been directed that the increments can not be withheld with retrospective effect and its effect will be for the period only for 3 which charges have been framed. The effect of stoppage of increment can also not be for future purposes. Petitioner was posted as Revenue Karamchari in the Andar Block in the district of Siwan. After joining on this post, he created Jamabandi, ignoring the legal process for the same and without any approval of his superior authorities, as much as, in favour of 54 persons. When this was noticed by the superior authorities, a notice was issued to the petitioner for filing show-cause, which was ignored by the petitioner. No show-cause was filed by him, rather he continued to commit the same wrong, despite a notice from his superior authorities. Thereafter, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Charges were framed against him and he was put under suspension. Petitioner submitted his show-cause before the Enquiry Officer. The show-cause filed by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the Writ Application, which indicates that out of 4 charges, framed against the petitioner, he has admitted his involvement so far three charges are concerned. But, he has taken a plea that due to 4 ignorance, he committed such mistakes, as it was his first posting as Revenue Karamchari, and he was not conversant with the procedure and rules. He has also taken this defence that it was the duty of the superior authorities to get him trained and time to time monitor, in order to find out any lapses and error on his part. Considering the show-cause, filed by the petitioner, which indicates his admission and also from perusal of the connected records, it was found that in a most illegal manner, even the Government lands have been mutated in favour of some persons, simply on this basis that a sale-deed has been executed with respect to that land. All procedure for creation of Jamabandi has been ignored. Finding the charges to be proved and the indisciplined behaviour of the petitioner, the punishment was awarded, as contained in impugned order, which is under challenged in the Writ Application. So far the non- supply of documents are concerned, I do not find that any such statement is there in the show-cause of the petitioner that he was not provided with the relevant documents for filing show-cause. There is nothing to show that Departmental Proceeding was 5 conducted in violation of the Rules of Natural Justice. So far the severity of the punishment is concerned and the allegation made by the petitioner that it is disproportionate to the charges framed against him, I do not find any substance. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has finally stated that withholding of increment, even for future purposes, is in violation of Annexure-12. The impugned orders have been passed on 20th of November, 2004 and the resolution of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, annexed as Annexure-12, is dated 30.04.2005. There is nothing to show that it will have retrospective application. I do not find any error in the order impugned. This application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)