IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2813 of 1997 ASHOK KUMAR son of late Rameshwar Prasad, resident of village Dillubigha, P S. Silao, District- Nalanda at present posted as Assistant Engineer, Public Health Division, Jamtara, District- Dumka. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary to Government, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna Zone, Patna. …. Respondents. ----------- 6. 19.05.2011 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. The petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order of punishment dated 24.10.1996 must succeed on the solitary ground that he has been inflicted major punishment of stoppage of three increments without conducting the departmental proceeding in terms of Rule 55 of Bihar Sub-ordinate Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It has to be noted that even if an enquiry officer was appointed and he had submitted his enquiry report on 12.5.1996 exonerating the petitioner fully in respect 2 of Charge no. charge no. 2 and 3 and holding Charge No. 1 to have been partly proved, copy of such enquiry report was not given to him on a plea that there was no requirement of supply of such enquiry report as it was a minor punishment. To that extent, the stand taken by the authority in the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “9. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no. 21 of the writ application it is stated that the report of the conducting officer is not required to be provided to the delinquent officer in case of awarding minor punishment. As a matter of fact the report may be given for the purpose of appeal on demand from the petitioner but this remedy has not been availed by the petitioner.” It would thus become clear that the respondents had adopted procedure for inflicting a minor punishment whereas they had gone to award major punishment. The aspect that stoppage of increment with cumulative basis being a major punishment stands settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Rang Nath Rai vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1997(2) PLJR 421. 3 That being so, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in law specially when the recourse provided by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in 1993(4) SCC 727 was also not followed wherein it has been held that in any departmental proceeding conducted after the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588, the copy of enquiry report has to be supplied irrespective of nature of punishment major or minor. The impugned order of punishment even otherwise cannot be sustained inasmuch as while the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner from two charges, the petitioner has also been held guilty in respect of those charges as well without giving him show-cause notice as contemplated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in 1998(7)SCC 84.. Thus, this Court would find that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in 4 law and the same has to be quashed. It is ordered, accordingly. Considering the facts that the petitioner has already retired from service and the charge against the petitioner being only of negligence in duty not found to have been proved by the enquiry officer, is not grave, this Court would also not give liberty to the respondents for proceeding afresh against the petitioner. It goes without saying that if as a result of quashing of the impugned order of punishment the petitioner becomes entitled for any consequential and / or financial benefit, the same must be extended to him within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.1996 as contained in Annexure- 11 is quashed. There would be, however, no order as to costs kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)