IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11514 of 2002 SHANTI DEVI, Wife of Late MEWA LAL RAM Resident of Mohalla – East Indira Nagar, Kankarbagh, Road No.1, Police Station – Kankarbagh, District-Patna. ---------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Commissioner-cum-Additional Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Secretary, Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department Bihar, Patna. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ------------ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Uday Chand Prasad. For the State : Mr. S. S. Sundaram, J C to AG. For the Accountant General : Mr Sanjay Kumar. *** 06. 19.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The original petitioner is now represented through his widow as he died during the pendency of the writ application. Vide order dated 12.6.2002 contained in annexure-12 the enquiring authority decided to impose punishment of withholding 10% of the pension as well as salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance. The order of punishment has come to be passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules because the original petitioner had superannuated in the meanwhile. Earlier the original petitioner had an occasion to visit this Court by filing CWJC No.15318 of 2001. At that point of time the challenge was that the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer without there being any material in this - 2 - regard since the enquiry officer has exonerated the original petitioner of the charges. The High Court vide its order dated 22.1.2002 did uphold the right of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the enquiry officer but then keeping in mind that cogent material and reasons had to be available for doing so the earlier punishment order was quashed with liberty to issue a second show cause to the original petitioner. Based on the directions of the Court a detailed show cause contained in annelxure-10 came to be issued. He has responded to the show cause by annexure-11 and taking the same into consideration final punishment order contained in annexure-12 has been passed. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasoning has been assigned for imposition of punishment in the impugned order and there is no material to show that there was an occasion to impose the punishment in question. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State they have categorically stated that pursuant to the court’s direction annexure-10 was issued to the petitioner which is not denied or disputed. The reasons for disagreement has been given in detail in annexure-10 but on plain reading of the show cause of the petitioner would show that there is no specific denial on averments except generalization. If in this background the punishment came to be imposed upon the original petitioner where large scale of loss of revenue amounting to 77 lacs was found during the period of posting of the petitioner the State has done no wrong. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Accountant - 3 - General it has been categorically stated that keeping the punishment order in mind all final settlement of dues and post retiral benefits have already been sanctioned and there is nothing outstanding against the respondents in terms of payments. Keeping the totality of the facts in mind and also that the petitioner has no cogent answer to offer to annexure-11 the Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction by interfering with the impugned order which came to be passed against the original petitioner namely Mewa Lal Ram. The writ application is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)