IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9480 of 2002 BISHWANATH PRASAD VERMA, son of Late Sheo Nandan Prasad Verma, resident of Sheo Niketan, Sheopuri, PS Saharsa, District Saharsa. ………Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Collector, Supaul 5. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur 6. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Ssharsa 7. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub Division, Supaul. ……..Respondents ----------- 3. 19.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner who at the relevant time in the year 1987 was a Junior Engineer at Supaul was entrusted with certain advance for the purpose of departmental works to the extent of approximately Rs. 15,53,300/- It is his case that he submitted vouchers for Rs. 12,80,179.35 and to that extent the advance was adjusted. The vouchers for the balance submitted by him were not being adjusted leading presumption of temporary defalcation by him and institution of Supaul PS Case No. 150 of 1991 which is said to be still pending. Charges were issued to the petitioner on 30.11.1994 to which he replied. The allegations that there were certain procedural irregularities in the departmental proceedings does not impress this Court in view of the fact that the punishment imposed on him were minor in nature, of censure for the year 1991-92, recovery of Rs. 1,76,727/- from his salary and stoppage of two annual increments with non cumulative effect, nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension as ordered on 23.3.2001. While the departmental proceedings were pending the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 13300 with the grievance that despite the vouchers being available with him for adjustment no steps ere taken by the respondents to his prejudice. On 19.12.2000 this Court disposed the writ application with a direction to the respondents to take immediate steps for adjustment of the vouchers submitted by the petitioner, if on verification they were found genuine and justified. The necessary vouchers were then considered by the respondents but in their counter affidavit they urge that the same were found fake and therefore rejected to justify the punishment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a very short point supported by Para 40, 41 and 44 of the writ petition. It was submitted that at this subsequent stage when the vouchers were being examined by the respondents, the petitioner was not associated or given any opportunity to substantiate that the vouchers were genuine and an exparte finding behind his back has been arrived at with regard to the alleged vagueness of the vouchers. Further more, the impugned order dated 23.3.2001 at Annexure 22 does not contain any discussion of the reasons why the vouchers were found fake, if the respondents could have been permitted to make out that ground at this stage without associating him at the stage of verification of the vouchers. Learned Counsel for the State urged that the punishment being minor required no interference for procedural irregularities. The allegations are of financial irregularities. But the respondents have themselves bungled the opportunity given to them by this Court and considered the same as a carte blanche to them to act in the manner of their choice contrary to the principle of law that no person can be condemned unheard without opportunity to demonstrate his innocence. The order dated 23.3.2001 is therefore unsustainable as the respondents have not chosen either in their counter affidavit or in the impugned order to demonstrate that at the stage of verification of the vouchers the petitioner was given due opportunity. The order of punishment dated 23.3.2001 is accordingly set aside. Considering the nature of the allegations of financial irregularities, the petitioner still being in service, the matter is remanded to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of order of this Court in CWJC No. 13300 of 2000 dated 19.12.2000 and conclude the proceedings within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)