IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13933 of 2003 SOHARAN HARIZAN SON OF LATE MUNSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILAGE PAKWALIA, POST-PAKWALIA, POLICE STATION DARAUNDA, DISTRICT SIWAN, AT PRESENT WORKING ON THE POST OF ASSISTANT TRAFFIC MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. SRI YATINDRA NATH JHA, DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC MANAGER- CUM-ENQUIRY CONDUCTING OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF OF THE OPERATION, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, PATNA. ----------- 8. 02.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served on the post of Depot Superintendent. He is aggrieved by the order bearing memo no. 182 dated 22.3.2003, Annexure-1 passed by the administrator whereunder the administrator having considered the two enquiry report pursuant to chargesheet dated 19.5.2000 and 12.8.1992 punished the petitioner by reverting him at the bottom of the scale with further direction that petitioner shall not be paid salary beyond subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 3. At the first hearing of writ petition on 16.2.2004, counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that the 2 punishment order refers to two chargesheets but petitioner has not been given opportunity of being heard in connection with the second chargesheet as he participated in the departmental proceeding initiated with reference to the chargesheet dated 19.5.2000. Aforesaid submission was recorded under order dated 16.2.2004 and with reference to the said submission counsel for the Corporation was directed to file counter affidavit which was filed on 30th of July, 2009. 4. Perusal of the said counter affidavit indicates that the deponent has categorically stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner was given opportunity of being heard in connection with the chargesheet dated 12.8.1992 as well. The copy of the counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 24.6.2009 which is evident from the receipt appended with the counter affidavit. Till date, no rejoinder to the averment made in the counter affidavit that petitioner was given opportunity of being heard in connection with the chargesheet dated 12.8.1992, has been filed. 5. Having considered the contents of the said chargesheet , this Court under order dated 25.10.2010 asked the counsel for the Corporation to produce the departmental proceeding file of the petitioner to confirm the averment made in the counter affidavit which has also been produced and this Court under order dated 27.10.2010 allowed the counsel for the petitioner to inspect the records. During the hearing of the 3 petition today counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the contents of the counter affidavit, in the circumstances, I am satisfied that petitioner filed this writ petition suppressing the information about the departmental proceeding taken pursuant to the chargesheet dated 12.8.1992. For the reason of suppression made by the petitioner, I dismiss the petition. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)