IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18148 of 2009 1. YUGESHWAR S/O LATE SUBEDAR RAM R/O VILL.- TURKI, P.S.- KURHANI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) CUM JOINT SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 16.03.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the Accountant General. While the petitioner was in service he was made a member of the three man committee with regard to grant of recognition to an institution in Darbhanga in pursuance of certain orders of this Court along with one Sri Ram Bilash Prasad, the then Director, Research and Training, Bihar and one Mr Bachcha Prasad Singh, the then Principal, Teachers Training College, Samastipur. The committee submitted its report on 1.8.1992. Notwithstanding which this Court refused to grant recognition. Seven years later the matter was referred to the Vigilance on 18.4.1999 which submitted its report on 25.10.1999. Departmental proceedings were then initiated against the petitioner on 6.4.2002. He superannuated on 31.3.2003 when the proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules and the charges against him have been proved. He was issued a second show cause notice as to why 20% of his pension be not withheld. 2 On 12.8.2008 the petitioner answered the second show cause notice specifically taking the objection that though he was a member of three man committee and their actions were in unison in submission of the report he alone was singled out for institution of a First Information Report. The others were not proceeded with in any manner. No witnesses were called during departmental proceedings and he was denied the right to cross- examination. He reiterated that it was the joint report by three persons and not an individual report of his own. Therefore there was no justification to subject him to the proceedings alone without anything being done against the other two. The respondents have then passed an order on 27.8.2009 rejecting his reply to the second show cause notice and imposing 20% deduction of pension. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that he has instruction to submit that one member of the committee has been deceased and the other had superannuated in 1995. In challenge to a punishment in pursuance of a departmental proceeding, this Court has to examine the matters of procedure first and only whereafter there is limited scope for interference on merits on limited grounds such as violation of principles of natural justice, perversity of findings, gross mala fide, bias etc. The petitioner specifically alleges a delay of seven years on part of the respondents in initiating any proceedings and that too singly against him alone when the allegations relates to duties discharged by him as one of the members of the three 3 man committee. He specifically raised objection in his reply to the second show cause that he has been singled out for discriminatory treatment by institution of a First Information Report and a departmental proceeding. He also raises issue of violation of procedures of natural justice during the departmental proceedings. The respondents were required to deal with this objection by a reasoned and speaking order before rejecting his reply to the second show cause notice. The impugned order dated 27.8.2009 is non-speaking and cryptic in nature. The petitioner has not been told why the respondents were satisfied that the other two members of the committee need not be proceeded against or were allegedly differently situated. The respondents have therefore violated the basic principles of natural justice by not properly dealing with the reply to the second show cause notice. This Court is not satisfied that by a counter affidavit the respondents can explain or supplement the order dated 27.8.2009 on grounds not mentioned in the original order itself. The order dated 27.8.2009 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage that the petitioner submitted reply to the second show cause notice and then to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after adequate consideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (2007) 7 SCC 502 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 4 If the respondents find justification in his claim or in any part of the claim it is expected that necessary consequential orders with regard to the amount of pension withheld inclusive of interest shall all be adequately considered within the like period. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)