IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10720 of 2004 RUDRA NARAIN YADAV SON OF LATE RAM DUTTA MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MURHO, P.S. MADHEPURA, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) PATNA. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 8. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 4 05/08/2010 Petitioner has already superannuated from service. He was holding the post of Executive Engineer when he came to be suspended for the so called irregularities committed in the earth work which was carried out at what is known as Mohrar canal for the year 1999-2000. One of the allegations was that excess payment to the extent of Rs.72,886/- had been made for the earth work on the basis of the so called measurement carried out. Another allegation was that the - 2 - petitioner tried to do some work on the canal just before visit of the Minister. Without there being any proper evidence in this regard a set of five charges came to be drawn up against him and a regular departmental enquiry was held. An enquiry report contained in annexure-3 dated 29.1.2002 was submitted which did not find the petitioner guilty on any count after due verification and on this ground benefit of doubt was given to him. The finding given by the enquiry officer did not please the people up in the hierarchy, yet another enquiry, it seems was held and a second report dated 21.6.2002 was tendered to the disciplinary authority. The second report also does not hold the petitioner guilty on any count but yet the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the findings issued a composite notice of disagreement as well as the second show cause for punishment which is evident from annexure-6 to the writ application. Petitioner did offer his explanation taking a clear stand that in absence of any material or finding the so called punishment imposed against him is without any material or circumstance. He decided to challenge the said order dated 22.7.2003 annexure-8 to the present writ - 3 - application. There are three kinds of punishment which have been imposed upon the petitioner, namely, (1) that he was disentitled for any promotion for the next three years, (2) that a sum of Rs.10,000/- would be recovered from him and (3) that he would not be entitled to any other payment except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. All these punishments have implications. Submission of the learned counsel is that after the first enquiry report was submitted, there was no occasion to hold a second enquiry or obtain a second report. That is not permissible under the law. No reason can allow the respondent for holding a fresh enquiry after the first had attained finality. He submits that even if this objection is given a go-by, then the next submission is that no notice of disagreement was issued to the petitioner based on the evidence or material for such disagreement because both the enquiry reports do not hold the petitioner guilty on any of the five counts. What is sought to be stated to be the notice of disagreement contained in annexure-6 is no notice in the eye of law because annexure-6 is a composite notice of so called disagreement and the second show cause. Such composite - 4 - notice has already been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be violative. Reading of annexure-6 would show that it is a composite notice. Further, even if the technicality, as above, is overlooked, he submits where is the material or evidence for disagreement. Mere narration of things does not make evidence for disagreement. According to the petitioner, the order of punishment has come to visit him merely because some people were interested in the department to punish him even though nothing substantial was found by the enquiry officer against him. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State except for the narration of events and the circumstance under which the enquiry was held, there are no clear explanations with regard to the infirmities pointed out by the petitioner. Holding of second enquiry, composite notice of disagreement contained in annexure-6 are facts which speak for themselves. The facts pointed out highlights the infirmities which have been committed in the proceeding, culminating into order of punishment. The order of punishment would be required to be interfered with since the infirmities are vital in nature. - 5 - In absence of any clear indication as to why a second enquiry was held or in absence of reason or compulsion to issue a composite notice under annexure-6 and in absence of any clear findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner, the order of punishment is a contrived order not based on any finding on which the order of punishment could be passed. Petitioner has made out a case for interference with the impugned order contained in annexure-8. Accordingly, annexure-8 stands quashed and the writ application is allowed. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, consequences of this order will have to be re-worked. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)