IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.168 of 2011 BRAJ SHANKAR PRASAD SINHA, son of late Chaturbhuj Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla- Yarpur, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna… ….Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna, 3. Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel, Bihar, Patna, 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 5. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 6. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi… …Respondents-Respondents ………… For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AC to G.P.-III For the State of Jharkhand : M/s Dhruba Mukherjee and Neeraj Kumar, Advocates …………. 3 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand. By the order under appeal dated 1.10.2010, writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1125 of 2006 preferred by the appellant against an order dated 26.7.1999 2 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) imposing punishment of censure, has been dismissed summarily. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the proceeding in question was for various charges relating to financial irregularities etc. pertaining to the period when the petitioner was posted as B.D.O., Ratu (Ranchi) and the order of punishment itself shows that in absence of cooperation of the authorities particularly the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and lack of relevant papers, no evidence was adduced in the proceeding and no findings were recorded in respect of the charges. A perusal of the order of punishment shows that there was direction of this Court to conclude the proceeding within a fixed period and such direction could not be complied for various reasons including disinclination of the Commissioner, Departmental Proceeding to work as Inquiry Officer. During the pendency of a contempt application in which a further period of six weeks was allowed to conclude the proceeding, the impugned order of punishment was passed only on the basis of memo of charges and 3 written defence of the proceedee and some documents available on record. The only finding against the petitioner is that his written defence was not found satisfactory and, therefore, it appeared that he had not followed the rules of conduct for government servant. On hearing the parties we are satisfied that the order of punishment contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition dated 26.7.1999 has been passed without due regard to the procedure to be followed in a proceeding initiated for award of major punishment. Hence we have no option but to quash the order of punishment imposing censure against the petitioner / appellant. The law is well settled that if the disciplinary authority decides to impose only a minor punishment, it can follow the prescribed procedure of show cause notice and decide the charge on the basis of show cause submitted by the proceedee. However, once the authorities opt for a full-fledged departmental proceeding meant for award of major punishment, they must conduct such proceeding as per 4 relevant rules and there must be an inquiry report based upon materials brought on record in course of the inquiry proceeding after giving opportunity of defence to the proceedee. Considering the nature of the charge, we grant liberty to the competent authority to decide afresh whether appellant should be subjected to any proceeding or not and if yes, whether for major punishment or minor punishment. If the competent authority opts for further proceeding against the appellant, it should be concluded without any delay and in accordance with law at an early date preferably within nine months from the date of production / communication of this order before the competent authority. It is not in dispute that on account of bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar w.e.f. 15.11.2000, the service of the appellant has been allocated to the newly created State of Jharkhand and hence his disciplinary proceeding is the competent authority in the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has expressed the same view that the proceeding against the appellant can proceed 5 only in State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar has no objection and he has informed the Court that the relevant records have already been sent to Jharkhand but if any thing further is required, the same shall be made available without any delay. The issue as to whether petitioner will be entitled for anything beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension shall abide by the result of the proceeding or else it shall be decided by the competent authority as per law. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition and the appeal are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)