IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11523 of 2004 JAI KISHORE CHOUDHARY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 9 11.03.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. As per direction of this Court, original record connected with the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner had also been produced and that was perused for finding out whether the allegation made by the petitioner regarding the improper and illegal conclusion of the departmental proceeding has got any merit. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order contained in Memo no. 1700 dated 7.3.2003 (Annexure-4), whereby he has been awarded punishment in the departmental proceeding. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the letter dated 14.2.2000 (Annexure-2), whereby the order of suspension has been revoked. Petitioner’s case is that since the so-called suspension order passed in the year 1997 was never served upon him and he continued to discharge his 2 duty continuously. There was no reason for issuing letter dated 14.2.2000, whereby the order of suspension was revoked. It has also been stated that this matter had earlier been considered by the High Court in the writ application i.e. CWJC No. 5907 of 1999 and the allegation made by the petitioner was under consideration. Respondents were directed to consider this matter, instead of accepting their lacuna regarding non-furnishing of the suspension order upon the petitioner, the order contained in letter dated 14.2.2000 revoking the suspension of the petitioner was issued. This letter was the reason for awarding the punishment of non payment of salary during the period of suspension. In the impugned order Annexure-4, it has been stated that the petitioner would not be entitled for anything, except the subsistence allowance. While challenging the impugned order contained in Memo No. 1700 dated 7.3.2003 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect as well as non payment of salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance, it is alleged that without 3 conducting the departmental proceeding in a proper and legal manner, the order awarding punishment has been passed. Specific allegation of the petitioner, while challenging Annexure-4 is that the Inquiry report was never served upon him, before awarding punishment. The punishment regarding non-payment of salary is bad, in view of the order passed in CWJC No. 5907 of 1999 and also that the punishment order was not passed by the competent authority, as Joint Secretary who has passed the impugned order is not his appointing authority. In order to find out the genuineness of the specific grounds taken by the petitioner, original record connected with the departmental proceeding was called and perused. So far the allegation regarding non-furnishing of the inquiry report is concerned, it is found to be correct. Petitioner was not provided with the Inquiry Report. Further case of the petitioner is that as per his information the Inquiring Officer, has not found any of the charges framed against the petitioner to be proved and he recorded for exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. In this situation, it was essential for the Disciplinary authority to show reason for disagreeing with the finding recorded by the Inquiry 4 Officer. That was not done. Petitioner was not served with second show cause notice before awarding punishment. For all these reasons, petitioner’s case is that impugned order awarding punishment is fit to be quashed. I also find substance so far the grounds taken by the petitioner are concerned. The petitioner was never served with the Inquiry Report, which was in his favour, as per the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. No reason was shown by the Disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. No second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before awarding punishment. For all these reasons, the impugned order Annexure-4 contained in memo no. 1700 dated 7.3.2003 is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. However, the Departmental Proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner, is required to be conducted and concluded properly. For this, it is desirable that proceeding initiated against the petitioner, should continue from the stage of submission of Inquiry Report. The Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer must be furnished to the petitioner. All subsequent proceedings should 5 continue, in accordance with law, giving proper opportunity to the petitioner for filing his objection in case of disagreement by the Disciplinary authority. The Departmental Proceeding will start from the stage of furnishing of the enquiry report and must conclude within six months of its initiation. The Respondent authorities will be cautious of this fact that proper intimation is given to the petitioner with regard to further proceeding. This application is allowed. Let the original records of departmental proceeding be handed over to Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.III. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)