IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1683 of 2001 CHANDRIKA MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 1/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Accountant General, Bihar. The petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 14.12.1989 while posted as Assistant Labour Commissioner at Saharsa for allegedly having made illegal appointments. It was only after he filed C.W.J.C. No.280/90 that the respondents proceeded against him with a departmental enquiry and which was pushed through hastily after the petitioner filed M.J.C. No.1330/93 for non-compliance of the order on the writ petition by completion of the departmental proceedings in prescribed time. The order of punishment dated 15.9.1993 now imposes 10% cut in his pension and that nothing was payable for the period of suspension, but which shall be counted as a period on duty for the purpose of pension. It is noteworthy that the petitioner superannuated on 31.5.1991 during the pendency of the departmental proceedings. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner, much less an opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment by issuance of a second show cause notice. Certain additional grounds were sought to be urged with regard to the issue of procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding, as also orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. no.5037/90 that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was competent to make appointments on Class-3 and 4 posts. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and neither has any copy been served on the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that he has with him a photo copy of the counter affidavit affirmed on 26.4.2001 under Oath No.6767. That he is not aware whether it came ever to be filed. He submits from the counter affidavit that it is an admitted position that the copy of the enquiry report or opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment were not given - 3 - to the petitioner. Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit is a copy of the enquiry report. This Court therefore requested learned counsel for the State to make available his copy of the counter affidavit. On going through the enquiry report, this Court finds that the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges. The impugned order of punishment dated 15.9.1993 becomes nonest and assumes dimensions of arbitrariness. If the petitioner had been exonerated, the disciplinary authority was all the more required to give him a second show cause notice that he proposes to differ with the enquiry report along with the grounds in pursuance thereof. Even that has not been done. Counsel for the State sought to persuade this Court not to interfere on the ground that the impugned order of punishment was passed on 15.9.1993 when the writ application was filed in February, 2001. In view of the arbitrariness apparent on the face, the issue of delay becomes - 4 - irrelevant which, in any event, has no relevance in a controversy of the present nature. The impugned order of punishment dated 15.9.1993 is accordingly quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to his full pension from the date of his retirement. He is also entitled to his full salary for the period of suspension. In view of the nature of the wrong committed to the petitioner, for which the respondents have no justifiable explanation and they cannot have an explanation, this Court considers it proper to award him 15% interest both on the amount of 10% pension which had been illegally withheld as also the salary for the period of suspension. The mindlessness with which the impugned order of punishment came to be passed compels this Court direct that the amount of interest shall be recovered from the salary of the erring official after fixation of the responsibility for which this Court requires the Chief Secretary of the State to have an enquiry made and file a compliance report to this Court within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production - 5 - of a copy of this order and during which period the arrears of the petitioner along with interest has to be paid to him. This Court further directs the Chief Secretary of the State to send, after fixing the responsibility for recovery of interest, the compliance report to the office of the Accountant General, Department of Finance, Bihar, also to ensure deductions from the salary of the concerned Government official. Let the photo copy of the counter affidavit placed by the counsel for the State be handed over back to him. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )