IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18543 of 2009 GOPAL SHARAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 07.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on two charges. The charges stated that, while he was posted at the Lower Bazar Police Station, the file with regard to sanction for prosecution of the accused in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 101 of 1995 and Deoghar P.S. Case No. 217 of 1990 was not put up by him in time, because of which sanction could not be given. Departmental proceedings culminated in an enquiry report dated 26.5.2006. With regard to the charge in context of Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 101 of 1995, the Enquiry Officer recorded that the petitioner till December, 1998 was posted in the concerned Department as Section Officer. He was then transferred. It appeared that the concerned file from March, 1997 till his transfer was never placed before him. On 27.02.2001 when the records were laid before 2 the then Home Commissioner, in his note dated 1.3.2001, he ordered that it appears that an Assistant Late Kamal Kumar De Choudhary and the Section Officer S.K. Lal, were found guilty. Late Kamal Kumar De Choudhary had expired. No action was taken against him, while show-cause notice was issued to Sri Lal, who was now in Jharkand. In context of Deoghar P.S. Case No.217 of 1990, the Enquiry Officer held that from the date of his posting in the concerned department till his transfer, records were never placed before the petitioner and for which the Assistant Late Kamal Kumar Dey Choudhary was responsible and not the petitioner. In this manner a report of exoneration came to be submitted when followed the second show- cause notice on 6.7.2006. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents sworn by one Md. Akhtar Gilani, Under Secretary, Record Administration Department. Paragraph-6 of the same states that the Conducting Officer recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner. It is very unfortunate that even while filing a document in a Court of law on oath, the deponent has been callous enough not to read the enquiry report and to file an affidavit bordering on negligence. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that even on a report of exoneration, the authorities shall be well within jurisdiction to differ with the same by setting out the reasons for difference of opinion based on materials collected during investigation to arise at a different conclusion on the same materials after giving an appropriate opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner by the impugned order has been visited with the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Normally this would have necessitated setting aside the order of punishment and remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report. However, in view of the conduct of the respondents themselves, holding a disciplinary enquiry contrary to established provisions of law, filing a wrong affidavit before this Court, completely contrary to the records by negligence and the nature of the punishment imposed read together with the charges, this Court is not satisfied that it is a fit case for remand. 4 The order of punishment dated 18.9.2006 is accordingly quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to the consequential benefits to be complied within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Court expects the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to appropriately examine the conduct of the deponent to the counter affidavit so that the Officers concerned act more responsibility considering that they are public servants assisting the court in dispensation of justice. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)