IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.385 of 2008 Nageshwar Prasad, son of Late Mathura Prasad, resident of village Chakmakho, P.O. Khudaibagh, P.S. Khaira, District Saran at present working as Incharge Head Master, Y.K. High School Khodaibagh at and P.O. Khodaibagh, District Saran………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna. 2. Director, Secondary Education, New Secretariate, Patna, Bihar 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran, Chapra 4. District Education Officer, Sara, Charpa, Saran, Chapra. 5. Treasury Officer, Saran 6. Accountant General Bihar, Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna 7. Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Saran, Chapra……………………………………………………………..……Respondents ----------- For Petitioner: Dr. M.P. Shukla, Advocate For State: Mr. Jay Prakash Sharma, A.C. to S.C. No.6 For Accountant General: Mr. Sanajay Kumar, Advocate *** 2 27.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No.3943 dated 11.10.2007 as contained in Annexure-1 by which, after conclusion of a departmental proceeding, in modification of the earlier order, petitioner has been awarded punishment withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect. 2 For lapses on his part, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet as contained in Annexure-3 was served on him. He submitted a reply vide Annexure-4 in which he accepted his guilt. The enquiry report was submitted by the District Education Officer vide Annexure-6. The enquiry officer proposed for releasing the petitioner from suspension after giving warning. After submission of the enquiry report (Annexure-6), petitioner was issued notice with proposed punishment withholding two annual increments. He submitted his reply and after considering the same, the said punishment order as contained in Annexure-1 was passed. Dr. M.P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that although proposed punishment of withholding two annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect was major punishment, no full-fledged enquiry was held against the petitioner. Since the disciplinary authority had not agreed with the purposed punishment of the enquiry officer, separate show cause was required to be issued to him for awarding punishment before passing of the said order of 3 punishment. This Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The enquiry officer had no authority to propose punishment against the petitioner. It is the finding of the enquiry officer which is for consideration by the disciplinary authority and if the disciplinary authority does not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer, he is required to assign reasons for the same only and communicate to the delinquent employee. As the petitioner had accepted his guilt in his show and the enquiry officer had also found the petitioner guilty of lapses, the said finding was considered by the disciplinary authority and, after service of a copy of the enquiry report with an opportunity to the petitioner, punishment order has been passed. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the procedure adopted in the matter. Moreover, since the petitioner had admitted his guilt in his reply to show cause, nothing remained to be proved for which procedure for imposing major punishment was required to be adopted in the case. However, Dr. Shukla, learned counsel 4 appearing for the petitioner submits that no order was passed by the disciplinary authority with regard to withholding of full salary of the petitioner for his suspension period. Since that punishment was not awarded, petitioner was entitled for full salary in this regard. After going through the impugned order, this Court does find substance in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, without interfering with the order of punishment, this Court directs that the petitioner should be paid remaining amount of salary of the suspension period as expeditiously as possible. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)