IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2572 of 2010 1. VINAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE GORAKH NATH SINGH R/O- VILL.+P.O.- SULTANPUR (YANIAR), DISTT.- BALLIA (U.P.), PRESENTLY POSTED AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPTT., DUMKA (JHARKHAND) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 02. 23.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Assailing the order dated 26.11.1998 as reviewed on 7.6.2000, it is submitted a major punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect came to be enforced without a departmental proceeding required under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. Strong reliance was placed on the statement at paragraphs 7 and 19 of the writ petition that no notice was ever given to the petitioner and no departmental proceedings for a major punishment were ever held. Learned counsel for the State seeks to invoke principles of delay to submit that the order of punishment dated 26.11.1998 is belated and insofar as the order dated 7.6.2000 is concerned it does not deal with the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed by one Sri Anil Kumar, Under Secretary, Road Construction 2 Department. He states in paragraphs 1 and 2 that he is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and has read and understood the statements in the writ petition. Dealing with paragraph-7 of the writ petition that no notice was issued to the petitioner even while acknowledging that the deponent was acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, the reply stated is that the petitioner was “well aware”. This Court holds it to be an admission by the deponent that the assertions of the petitioner of a proceedings behind his back stands established. Likewise paragraph-19 of the writ petition dealt with in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit simply states that it is a matter of record. It stands established as a matter of record from the pleading in paragraph-19 that no departmental proceedings for a major punishment was held. In that view of the matter, the order of punishment dated 26.11.1998 is an absolute nullity in law and delay is irrelevant. If the order dated 26.11.1998 is a nullity any consequential order, whether it be 7.6.2000 or any other is also a nullity. The order of punishment is quashed. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)