IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3354 of 2010 1. AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE SATDEO SINGH R/O VILL.- KHULASA, P.S.- JAMO BAZAR, DISTT.- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY ( VIGILANCE ), ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 13/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was suspended on 12.9.2008 under Rule-9(1)(a) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 2005 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Charges were framed on 26.11.2008. He filed his reply. Punishment was imposed on 8.5.2009 stopping three increments with non-cumulative effect and that no salary was payable for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance. He preferred a review application which has been dismissed on 29.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner asked for certain documents which never came to be supplied to him. He filed his reply to the memo. of charges with that handicap. In his review application he raised a specific ground of hostile discrimination vis-à-vis others against whom similar allegations had been levelled but were not proceeded with - 2 - departmentally. The order dated 29.12.2010 does not deal with the same at all. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not answer that ground taken specifically in paragraph-31 to 34 of the writ application. Learned counsel for the State points out that the memo. of charges contained evidence as enclosures mentioned therein. The punishment imposed was minor after consideration of the cause shown. The petitioner filed a detailed reply. He has not been prejudiced in any manner. Though a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with memo. of charges, he has been visited with a minor punishment. The procedure for the same required a show cause notice and consideration of the reply thereto only. The non-supply of any documents cannot be said to have caused him any prejudice when he filed a detailed reply and the punishment imposed is minor. This Court, however, finds that neither in his application for revocation of suspension or in his applications asking for documents or his reply did he take any specific ground of hostile discrimination vis-à-vis others situated similarly. True it is that in his review application he has specifically taken this ground and named certain officers. This was required to be considered by the reviewing authority in - 3 - accordance with law. Moreover, his specific assertion to that effect in paragraph-31 to 34 in his writ petition finds no consideration in the counter affidavit. The order of the reviewing authority dated 29.1.2010 is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded to the reviewing authority to re-consider issues and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order on the defence of the petitioner for having been subjected to a different treatment and hostile discrimination as compared to those who, he alleges, were similarly situated, questioned in same manner, but not proceeded with. Let such fresh consideration be done and orders passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)