IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3696 of 2009 SUBHASH CHANDRA DAS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was taken into custody leading to suspension on 23.2.2004. He came to be released and gave his joining on 25.12.2004, but suspension has allegedly not been revoked. In the meantime, a memo of charge dated 17.1.2003 was issued. Charge no. 1 stated that in his capacity as the Secretary of the Rangkarmi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, he had taken a loan in 1999 from the Bihar State Housing Co-operative Federation of Rs. 2,45,0000/- but no repayment was being made. Charge no. 2 stated that he had obtained a loan by forged signature of the land owners and allottees. Charge no. 3 stated that the housing society had been superseded on 29.5.2002 and an administrator appointed but even after that the petitioner was representing himself as the Secretary of the society/organization without permission of the Government thereby violating the conduct rules. The petitioner filed his reply to the same on 18.2.2003. Thereafter a fresh order dated 7.7.2003 was passed initiating proceedings under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, on one charge only stating that while holding the post of 2 Assistant Engineer without departmental approval, he obtained appointment as the Secretary of the society, obtained loans, but did not inform the Government of his elected post which was in violation of the conduct of the Government Servant Conduct Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only logical presumption following from the aforesaid is that after the petitioner submitted his show cause to the memo of charges, the authorities did not consider it prudent in their wisdom to proceed against the other charges and confined it to only one charge of his conduct unbecoming of a Government servant under the Conduct Rules. The contention is that the authorities consciously dropped the other charges after examination of the cause shown. On 29.8.2006 an enquiry report came to be submitted on this solitary charge holding him guilty. Thereafter on 16.1.2007 orders have been passed afresh for further departmental proceeding against the petitioner on basis of a supplementary charge sheet. It is submitted that the word “supplementary” used in the charge sheet dated 16.1.2007 was a misnomer. Once the authorities decided to drop the other charges after the cause shown when a fresh memo of single charge was issued on 7.7.2003, there is no justification for the present supplementary charge sheet on matters already dropped earlier. In fact, nothing has transpired during the course of the departmental proceedings 3 which was not available to the authorities earlier. Not only was the earlier materials available, but consciously after consideration of the cause shown, the matter was dropped. The subsequent departmental proceedings on the same dropped charges is therefore not sustainable in law inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be subjected to regular harassment, matters reopened in the manner sought to be done. Learned counsel for the State emphasizes that the charge dated 16.1.2007 was a supplementary charge on basis of materials that had transpired during the enquiry. The petitioner filed his reply to the memo of charge dated 16.1.2007 in which he specifically took objection inter alia with regard to a fresh proceedings in view of the earlier charges dated 17.1.2003 having been dropped and confined to only one charge by memo dated 7.7.2003. During the pendency of the writ application, the departmental proceedings in pursuance of the charge dated 16.1.2007 has been completed and an enquiry report allegedly of guilt has been submitted. Learned counsel for the State fairly acknowledges that now a second show cause notice is required to be served upon the petitioner for the proposed punishment. Since the matter is still pending consideration before the disciplinary authority, this Court does not consider it prudent to interfere with the enquiry report at this stage but disposes this 4 application with the following directions. This Court requires the disciplinary authority to adequately discuss the grounds noticed herein urged by the petitioner before the enquiry officer also. The disciplinary authority is then required to pass a reasoned and speaking order displaying appropriate application of mind to the issues involved as discussed in the present order. This Court expects that the disciplinary authority shall discuss each of the issues contained in this order and shall not shrift the same as appears to have been done by the enquiry officer. Let a reasoned and speaking order be passed with full discussion of materials disclosing transparency and full application of mind on the cause that may be shown by the petitioner so that judicial review of the order of the disciplinary authority shall be facilitated. Let final orders in the departmental proceedings be passed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Liberty is given to the petitioner to represent before the authorities with regard to his continued suspension in view of the aforesaid facts. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)