IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6978 of 2008 KEDAR PASWAN, SON OF LATE PRABHU PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ERU, P.O. SAHIYA, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER-CUM-B.D.O., PARAIYA BLOCK, GAYA. 6. THE DY. COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, GAYA. 7. THE S.D.O., SADAR, GAYA. 8. SRI CHITRANJAN SINGH, CONDUCTING OFFICER-CUM-MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE D.M., GAYA For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar I, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambastha, A.C. to S.C. 15. ----------- 2 18.5.2011 The petitioner faced a departmental proceeding in which seven charges were framed against him. The petitioner filed his show-cause and after enquiry dated 18.10.1993 he was exonerated from all the charges. It may be relevant to mention here that one of the charges were theft of certain items from the store for which a First Information Report was also instituted. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that although he was exonerated in the enquiry report, the District Magistrate, Gaya passed orders of punishment which were recovery of the value of five pump sets and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal raising the issue that he was not served with the enquiry report and as such the order of punishment was not justified, and a second show-cause ought to have been issued to him before awarding the major punishment of recovery of the value of the pump sets. The Commissioner before whom the appeal was pending has 2 exonerated the petitioner as far as the allegation of theft is concerned. In the mean time, the trial under Sections 409 and 421 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated and the petitioner was exonerated from the offences under Sections 409 and 420 vide Trial No. 485/93 on 7.1.1994. Being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue by order dated 9.2.2008 converted the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect to simple stoppage of increments. The punishment was awarded in 1994. The effect of the punishment has expired in 1997 since the order of the Board of Revenue indicated that the punishment would be without cumulative effect. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not issued a second show-cause notice would automatically fade away in view of the fact that the punishment awarded was a minor punishment, and due to the fact that the effect of the punishment expired in 1997. Nothing more needs to be said in this regard. This writ application has virtually become infructuous and is disposed of as infructuous.. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)