IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21998 of 2011 ====================================================== Girija Nand Das, son of late Shrinandan Lal Das, resident of Village, PO & PS – Uda Kishunganj, District - Madhepura .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary – cum – Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AAG 1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 2 13-12-2011 The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority made on 8th April 2010 and the punishment of `Censure’ imposed upon the petitioner. It appears that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for not achieving the expected results in the Financial Year 2007-08. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment of `Censure’ imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 17661 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 26th February 2010. The learned single Judge observed, “The petitioner questions the punishment of `censure’ by order dated 13.10.2008”. It appears that the writ petitioner desired to Patna High Court CWJC No.21998 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 2 / 4 2 approach the respondent authority in the subject matter. The petitioner appears to have sought direction for allowing him to make representation and for expeditious disposal of such representation. Accepting the request of the petitioner, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the observation, “It is expected that if his application for reconsideration of the punishment finds favour, all necessary consequential action required in furtherance thereof shall be taken simultaneously”. It is apparent that what the petitioner challenged was the punishment alone and not the disciplinary proceeding. Pursuant to the said order and the representation made by the petitioner, the impugned order was made on 8th April 2010 maintaining the punishment of `Censure’ imposed upon the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Rajeev Roy has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was not conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions, the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). He has submitted that although the respondent invoked Rule 19 of the Rules, the respondent did not conduct a detailed enquiry as envisaged by Rule 17 of the Rules. He has submitted that Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules provides for an elaborate enquiry as contemplated by Rule 17 of the Rules unless the disciplinary authority expressly held that such detailed enquiry was not required. Mr. Roy has also submitted that the petitioner had made a composite representation to question the disciplinary proceeding as well as the finding of guilt and the Patna High Court CWJC No.21998 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 3 / 4 3 quantum of punishment. I am unable to agree with Mr. Roy. Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules does not make it mandatory upon the disciplinary authority to make an express or specific order dispensing with the detailed enquiry as envisaged by Rule 17 of the said Rules. The said Clause (b) reads as under:- “(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 17, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.” It is apparent that in case the disciplinary authority feels a necessity for a detailed enquiry, the disciplinary authority would make a specific order to make a detailed enquiry as envisaged by Rule 17 of the said Rules. In absence of such specific decision, ordinarily, for a minor punishment, a detailed enquiry is not contemplated. As to the representation against the disciplinary proceeding, it is apparent that the petitioner sought leave of the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 17661 of 2009 was in respect of the punishment alone. In view of the specific order of this Court, it was not open for the petitioner to challenge the disciplinary proceeding. In any view, the only challenge is in respect of summary enquiry under Rule 19 of the Rules. I have already held that in absence of specific order by the disciplinary authority, for imposition of minor punishment, detailed or elaborate enquiry is not contemplated. No other contention is raised before this Court. The impugned order dated 8th April 2010 is self- explanatory. In my opinion, the punishment of `Censure’ Patna High Court CWJC No.21998 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 4 / 4 4 imposed upon the petitioner does not warrant interference. Petition is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ)