IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1024 of 2010 1. RAJIV RANJAN PANDEY S/O SRI DEO BANS PANDEY R/O VILL, P.O. NADUAN, P.S. NATWAR, DISTT. ROHTAS, PRESENTLY POSTED AS MARKETING OFFICER, PATNA RATIONING OFFICE, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT. ROHTAS 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER ROHTAS, SASARAM 6. THE SPECIAL OFFICER RATIONING, PATNA COLLECTORATE, PATNA ----------- For petitioner: M/s Surendra Mishra & Dineshwar Mishra, Advocates For the State : Ac to SC XI ------ 3. 31.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 23.9.2008. It was revoked on 31.12.2008 without holding any proceeding against him. He represented for his salary on 30.3.2009. The respondents then passed the order dated 18.6.2010 imposing the punishment of ‘censure’, and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. The petitioner questions the punishment as being without a show cause notice unsustainable in law. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents affirmed by an office of the rank of Deputy Secretary one Sri Suresh Thakur. He states that he has gone through the writ petition and has fully understood the same. He does not deny the contention of the petitioner that the punishment of ‘censure’ has been imposed without show cause notice but contends that no proceedings were necessary. The power which the respondents deem to arrogate to unto themselves in law to pass orders of punishment without an opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself, when law does not vest them with such powers, leaves the Court with no option but to quash the order of punishment. This Court is pained in the manner in which an officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary persists to defend an apparent illegal order. Curiously para 9 of the counter affidavit makes a somersault to say that the salary for the period of suspension has been paid in the light of interim order of this Court dated 16.7.2010. The casualness with which the officials of the State Government conduct litigation on its behalf before this Court generating totally unwanted and avoidable litigation with regard to settled law disappoints this Court. If the petitioner has any other grievance with regard to ACP etc. he may represent for the same which is required to be considered and disposed off appropriately in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of presentation of such appeal. The order of punishment dated 18.6.2010 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)