IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2293 of 2007 PARAS NATH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMA SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA YARPUR, POLICE STATION GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF STATISTICS AND EVALUATION, BIHAR, PATNA, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. For the petitioner : M/s Sanjay Kr. Verma, Bijay Bihari Sinha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. J.P. Karn, AAG-9. ---------------- 03. 19.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.636 dated 23.3.1999, Annexure-5 whereunder Director, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, Patna has punished the petitioner by stopping his two increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner is further aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.1106 dated 12.6.2004, Annexure-9 whereunder he has been punished with censure with further direction not to receive any salary beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension 2 between 17.7.2003-1.11.2003. He is also aggrieved by the communication made under letter no.897 dated 7.5.2005, Annexure-11 whereunder appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid two orders dated 23.3.1999, 12.6.2004 vide memo of appeal, Annexure-10 before the Secretary, Planning and Development Department of the State Government has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid two orders dated 23.3.1999, 12.6.2004, Annexures-5, 9 were preceded by enquiry proceeding in which enquiry officer submitted report exonerating the petitioner on both the occasion but without serving the petitioner with the reasons for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer as also the proposed punishment the aforesaid two punishment orders dated 23.3.1999, 12.6.2004 were passed by the Director, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, Patna as he was determined to punish the petitioner with a view to harass him. 4. The State respondents have filed counter affidavit duly affirmed by the Assistant Director (Headquarter), Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, Patna. The counter affidavit does 3 not indicate that reasons differing with the findings recorded in the enquiry report submitted in favour of the petitioner was served on the petitioner together with the proposed punishment. Punishment imposed under order dated 23.3.1999 withholding the two increments of the petitioner is a major punishment, as such, before imposing such punishment the Disciplinary Authority was obliged to have issued notice indicating reasons for differing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as also the proposed punishment. While imposing punishment under order dated 12.6.2004 withholding the salary of the petitioner for the period during which petitioner remained under suspension the Disciplinary Authority was also obliged to have issued second show cause notice to the petitioner as the enquiry report was in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the submissions raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal, Annexure-10 has neither been dealt with in the counter affidavit nor any reasoned order dealing with the submissions has yet been passed. 5. It is thus quite evident that the submissions raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal, Annexure-10 asserting contravention of Sub- 4 Clause(2) of Article 311 of the Constitution is justified. In the circumstances, I have no option but to set aside the punishment order as also the communication rejecting the appeal with direction to the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Director, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, Patna to serve the second show cause notice on the petitioner and thereafter to pass fresh order in accordance with law considering the fact that petitioner superannuated during the pendency of the writ petition. Director, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, Bihar, Patna should proceed in compliance of the order of the High Court as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him and to conclude the matter within another two months from the date of receipt of the show cause reply of the petitioner. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)