IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3944 of 1995 SIYA SARAN ROY, son of Shri Hanuman Saran Roy, resident of village Kamla Gopalpur, Police Station Maner, District Patna, at present posted as Junior Engineer, Scientific Quality Control Division No. 3, Siwan, at and police Station Siwan, District Siwan. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, District Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Deputy Director, Scientific Quality Control, Division No. 3, Siwan, Police Station Siwan, District Siwan. …. Respondents. ----------- 3. 18.08.2009. Heard Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Prayer made in this writ application is to quash the order dated 9.3.1995 (Annexure-3) and consequential order dated 3.5.1995 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been subjected to punishment of censure for the year 1984-85, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect as also recovery of Rs.30,752/- from the salary for the loss caused to the government exchequer. Mr. Sharma, in support of the aforementioned prayer would raise a very 2 small but effective submission. He would in this regard contend that by now it is well settled that an order of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment which cannot be inflicted without taking recourse to a full-fledged departmental proceeding. In this context, he would refer to the impugned order itself which would go to show that such order was passed only by giving the petitioner a show-cause notice dated 1.7.1991 (Annexure-1). In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein also the respondents have not taken a plea of initiating a departmental proceeding and in fact from perusal of its paragraph no. 2 (d), it would appear that the petitioner was only asked to file an explanation and upon receipt of such explanation as the was found unsatisfactory in course of examination by the authority of the department, the petitioner was inflicted such punishment. Thus, from the counter affidavit itself this is admitted that no departmental proceeding was initiated 3 against the petitioner while inflicting such punishment. In that view of the matter, impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to consider as to whether even after a lapse of 18 years, misconduct as alleged against the petitioner would require initiation fresh proceeding. This Court of course, is conscious that the charge of financial loss to the government for which recovery was directed to be made from the salary of the petitioner a proceeding under Rule 43 B would be permissible but then it would be for the disciplinary authority to consider desirability of initiating a proceeding under Rule 43 B. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed to the aforementioned extent. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)