IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8780 of 2005 ====================================================== Rabban Ahmad Mallick, S/o Late Suleman Mallick, R/o Village- Bellowa, P.S. Rajgir, District- Nalanda. .... .... Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna having its office on Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna. 2. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar Patna. 3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Minor Irrigation Department, Gaya. 7. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 8. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Minor Irrigation Department, Gaya. .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chakradhari Shar Singh AAG 6. Mrs. Anju Jha, A.C. to AAG 6. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 25-10-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22nd June 2011 Patna High Court LPA No.1184 of 2011 (4) dt.25-10-2011 2 / 3 2 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 8780 of 2005, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the State Government. On the finding of guilt by the Inquiry Officer, by order dated 7th May 2003 the appellant was visited with punishment of withholding of increments and recovery of monetary loss caused to the public exchequer. The challenge to the said order in CWJC NO. 8400 of 2003 was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had the alternative remedy of departmental appeal. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on 16th March 2005. The challenge to the said order dated 16th March 2005 has been partially accepted by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has set aside the order of the appellate authority on the premise that it is not a speaking order. The matter has been remitted to the appellate authority for decision on merits by a speaking order. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Rupak Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority has merged in the order of the appellate authority. Setting aside of the order of the appellate authority would amount to setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority also. The argument is recorded with a view to rejecting the same. Mr. Rupak Kumar has also submitted that the disciplinary proceeding has been conducted in violation of the Patna High Court LPA No.1184 of 2011 (4) dt.25-10-2011 3 / 3 3 principle of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930. He has submitted that the appellant was not furnished copy of the enquiry report. The disciplinary proceeding is, therefore, vitiated. We have carefully perused the departmental appeal memo submitted by the appellant (Annexure-16 to the writ petition). It may be noted that the grounds of challenge to the disciplinary proceeding raised before us are not raised in the appeal memo. The appeal memo is more of a defence statement. Be that as it may, since the learned single Judge has remitted the matter to the appellate authority, we do not intend to interfere. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit /- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)