IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6294 of 1997 RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY, S/O JAGDAMBA CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE PIPRADIH, P.S RAJOURI, P.O.MORAMA, DISTRICT BANKA. .............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 5.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA. 6.THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR. 7.THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR. ..............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 16.05.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Birendra Kant Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 17.04.1997 has submitted that the impugned order of punishment dated 17.04.1997 arising out of a disciplinary proceedings has been passed without supply of inquiry report to the petitioner. He would further submit that even when the petitioner had submitted an exhaustive reply to the memo of charge by way of written statement of defence, but that too 2 had not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned cryptic order inflicting major punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect as also entry of censure in his service record apart withholding payment of salary for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the State in reply on the other hand has placed reliance on averments made in the counter affidavit but had to fairly accept that there was no answer to the specific assertion of the petitioner in para no. 32 of the writ application as with regard to non supply of the inquiry report, reading as follows:- 'That, it is stated that the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report before passing order of punishment as contained in Annexure-1 which deprived the petitioner of his right to make representation against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and has caused great prejudice to him. Thus the action of the respondent authority is in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Md.Ramzan Khan.' It has to be noted that in the counter affidavit that has been sworn and filed by Sub-divisional Officer, Rajgir on behalf of 3 all the respondents, the aforesaid statement of para 32 of the writ application has been replied in para 25 of the counter affidavit in the following terms:- 'That so far the statement made in paragraph no. 32 of the writ petition is concerned petitioner is to prove.' It would thus become clear that the Sub- divisional Officer who even otherwise was not in a position to know about the fact of service of the inquiry report to the petitioner inasmuch as, the impugned order was passed by the State Government in the Agriculture Department had filed a wholly uncalled for counter affidavit in a half hearted manner simply to complete the formality. Infact barring this counter affidavit, there is nothing on record to support the impugned order and therefore, when the impugned order also is a wholly cryptic order giving no inkling of application of mind on the specific plea of defence raised by the petitioner in his exhaustive written statement of defence, this Court will have little option but to hold that the impugned order of punishment is bad in law. In this regard, from reading of the 4 impugned order as contained in Annexure-1, it would be clear that the only consideration by the respondents while inflicting order of punishment is as follows:- ^^2- lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dk tkap izfrosnu muds i=kad 165 ¼xks0½ fnukad 5- 2-97 }kjk izkIr gqvk] ftlesa vkjksi izekf.kr ik;k x;kA 3- vkjksi Jh pkS/kjh ls vkjksi ds fo:n~/k izkIr Li"Vhdj.k lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds tkap izfrosnu ,oa vU; miyC/k lk{;ksa dh leh{kk ljdkj ds Lrj ij dh xbZ vkSj leh{kksijkUr fu.kZ;k fy;k x;k fd Jh pkS/kjh dk pkj osru o`fn~/k lap;kRed izHkko ls jksdk tk;] fuUnu dh ltk nh tk; ,oa fuyEcu vof/k dk fuokZg HkRrk ds vykos dksbZ fuokZg HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA** Such a bald order of punishment even in case of agreement with the finding of the inquiry officer would be in violation of principles of natural justice specifically when the copy of the inquiry report was never served on the petitioner. The respondents have also not enclosed a copy of the inquiry report with the counter affidavit, so as to enable this Court to examine and apply the theory of prejudice to the petitioner on account of non supply of the inquiry report as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L Hyderabad and Ors vs B. Karunakar and Ors, reported in 1993(4) SCC 727. In that view of the matter, this court will have no other option but to quash the impugned order of punishment and remit the 5 matter back to the State Government to proceed from the stage of submission of the inquiry report. The petitioner now shall be furnished a copy of the inquiry report, whereafter the respondents shall pass a final order within three months from the date of filing of the reply by the petitioner. Any financial benefit withheld on account of impugned order of punishment will however abide by the fresh final order to be passed by the competent authority in the departmental proceeding. As the matter had remained pending in this regard for almost 15 years, this Court would expect that the authorities would do the needful at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and liberty, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)