IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2822 of 2009 DR.BALIRAM BHAGAT, SON OF LATE BABULAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PARARIYA, P.O.-BHAKURA, P.S.-TARARI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 5.8.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.447 dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure-35) where under in consideration of the enquiry report (Annexure-33) and the second show cause reply (Annexure-34), he has been imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement is by way of punishment and petitioner has challenged the same on twin grounds namely that in the light of the contents of Annexures 3 and 4, the charge No.1 which was found proved against him ought not to have been taken as proved. 3. In this connection, I would like to refer to Charge No.1, which was about - 2 - refusal of the petitioner to conduct a fresh enquiry against Dr. Om Prakash Singh as is evident from Annexures 3 and 4. In the circumstances, the submission that Charge No.1 is not proved does not appear to be correct. So far Charge No.2 is concerned, petitioner was asked to verify the store of the Frozen Semen Bank, Banka, but he refused to verify the store of the said Semen Bank as according to him, such verification was also not necessary. 4. When the Government or the Superior Authority asked the petitioner to conduct a fresh enquiry in the light of Annexure-3, in my opinion, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have proceeded with the enquiry and he could not have stated that fresh enquiry against Dr. Om Prakash Singh is not necessary. Similarly when petitioner was to verify the Semen Bank, he should have verified the materials available in the store and submitted his report and it was none of his business to have stated that such verification itself is not necessary. In the circumstances, I reject the submission that - 3 - N.H./ the charges levelled against him have not been found proved in the enquiry report. However, while maintaining the finding of guilt, considering the fact that the charge does not relate to misappropriation of funds, I would grant opportunity to the petitioner to represent before the State Government for reduction of quantum of punishment and such representation be considered by the State Government in accordance with law as early as possible in any case before the petitioner reaches the age of his superannuation on 30th September,2009. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)