IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7766 of 2002 DINESH MALAVIYA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 30.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings on allegations of having allegedly submitted fake T.A. bills. There were three charges. Charge no.1 was fully established. He was absolved of charge no.2 and held guilty in part of charge no.3. A second show cause notice followed on the same when by order dated 1.3.2002 at Annexure-1 he has been removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in fact there had been no departmental proceeding in accordance with law inasmuch as the department led no evidence to prove the charges and the inquiry officer proceeded to arrive at his findings only on documentary evidence. Certain documents demanded by the petitioner were not made available to him. The petitioner was denied the right to cross examine the departmental witnesses. 2 Learned counsel for the State submitted from the inquiry report the finding of the enquiry officer that in the nature of allegations of fake T.A.bills, all that the petitioner was required to demonstrate and place in the inquiry were proof of travel by way of counterfoil of the bus ticket, stay at the hotel and/or the Government rest house or any other expenses in connection with the travel. The petitioner failed to do so. The judicial view with regard to departmental proceedings now is that it is not every procedural lapse in the departmental proceeding which shall vitiate it. What is relevant is the prejudice thereby caused to the delinquent. There shall be no presumption of such prejudice and it shall be for delinquent to demonstrate such prejudice. On the facts of this case, nature of the allegations, this Court finds itself in complete concurrence with the opinion of the inquiry officer noticed above to hold that there has been no prejudice to the petitioner. To this extent, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 1.3.2002. 3 However, the fact of the matter remains that the fake T.A. bills alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner did not fructify, inasmuch as the monetary benefit did not actually pass on to him and it was detected before the petitioner could have the benefit of the same. Had he availed the monetary benefit, the question of interfering even for a limited purpose with the order dated 1.3.2002 would not have a reason for consideration. In absence of such situation, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment appears to be excessively harsh. The matter is therefore, remanded to the authorities on the issue of the quantum of punishment only. The order dated 1.3.2002 is only set aside to that extent. Let such fresh decision of the proposed punishment be taken within a maximum period of 12 weeks in accordance with law from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall also be for the respondent to take appropriate decision with all other issues for the interregnum period. (Navin Sinha,J.) AI