IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16235 of 2011 Devendra Prasad Sahi S/O Late Rajo Sahi R/O Village Shahi Meenapur, P.S.-Aurai, District-Muzaffarpur—Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Cabinet Coordination Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary-Cum-Chief Vigilance Officer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna-------------- --------------------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Punishment order came to visit the petitioner in a departmental proceeding initiated against him relating to a serious allegation of petitioner holding back certain files while he was posted in the Vigilance Department against yet another employee which delayed action. Petitioner came to the High Court challenging the order of punishment and filed CWJC No. 10920 of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22nd September, 2008. Learned Single Judge had this to say in pages 4-5 of the order which is as follows: “In view of the facts and position in the relevant rules noticed above, this Court finds that the petitioner had been given required opportunity to explain his conduct amounting to negligence as required under the rules for imposing minor punishments. It is also found that the action of the respondents in placing the disciplinary matter before 2 the Minister was not violative of any rules and hence the order of punishment suffers from no illegality on that account.” If the finding of learned Single Judge was what it is, the order of punishment therefore was affirmed since no infirmity as such was found in imposition of punishment in question. Petitioner however was given opportunity to file appeal which was to be decided by the Cabinet since the Minister had passed the order of punishment. The said order is annexure-10 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. Submission of learned counsel is that he did not get proper opportunity to defend himself nor was he permitted to look into the documentary evidence to build up his defence. There seems to be basic error in the submission of learned counsel of the petitioner on this score because the finding of learned Single Judge categorically stated that opportunity to explain his conduct was given before imposition of minor punishment and therefore the said submission now cannot be entertained as ground of interference with the order impugned. The findings are categorically that petitioner deliberately delayed placing of the file relating to an Executive Engineer where certain action was contemplated. In absence of any other major legal infirmity having been pointed out in the decision taken by the appellate authority, which happened to be Cabinet, no interference is warranted with annexure-10. This writ petition is dismissed. 3 No opinion has been expressed by this Court with regard to annexure-11 which in the opinion of this Court is a separate cause of action. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)