IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6011 of 2001 AWADHESH PRASAD SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 04.09.2008 Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings on 11 charges of alleged indisciplined behaviour in the office. The inquiry report dated 20.9.2000 exonerates him on 10 charges in absence of evidence as not proved. Only with regard to charge no. 3, it has found to be partially proved. On this followed an order of punishment dated 24.3.2001 under challenge in the present writ application. It imposes punishment of Censure, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. The period of suspension shall not be treated as a break in service. Charge no. 3 finds him guilty of using offending language in office communication. As per the inquiry report, the offending language alleged to have been used are „eyes‟ and its Hindi derivative “Chakshu”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against a report of exoneration on ten out of eleven charges, the petitioner has been visited with a punishment without any show cause as to why the government proposed to differ with the exoneration or in any event that the punishment was in - 2 - excess of the finding against him on charge no. 3. The counter affidavit of the respondents encloses a photo copy of an earlier counter affidavit affirmed but which was got misplaced before it could be filed. Reliance is placed on paragraph no. 14 of the same which this Court considers appropriate to quote hereinafter: “Para-14: That the statement made in para 13 of the writ petition under reply it is stated and submitted the conducting officer failed to take into account the documentary evidences available on record against the petition and on scrutiny it appear to the State Govt. that he was some how influenced by the petitioner and hence after due scrutiny at highest level of the department the Govt. awarded the punishment in question to the petitioner which is quite just a lawful.” If the Inquiry Officer was favoured or influenced or sought to be influenced by the respondent, it was for the respondents to find a solution. They cannot accept the inquiry report and simultaneously makes allegation against the inquiry officer to visit the petitioner for punishment without any discussion that the punishment was being imposed only in respect of the charge on which he had been found guilty partially and not on the charges of which he had been exonerated. The absence of any such discussion in the order of punishment makes it arbitrary as it becomes apparent that the mind of the disciplinary authority was clouded by the entire inquiry report while imposing the punishment and he did not - 3 - separate the grain from the chaff to arrive at the present punishment. No punishment could be imposed on a finding of exoneration without opportunity and spelling out the reasons for such difference of opinion.. In that view of the matter, the only order to be passed at this stage is to set aside the order of punishment dated 24.3.2001 and remand the matter back to the respondents to take fresh decision on the inquiry report and the materials noticed therein in accordance with law within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. pkj (Navin Sinha, J)