IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9245 of 2003 Ram Kumar Singh, son of late Ram Yasan Singh, resident of Mohalla – Manpura, P S – Digha, Dist – Patna posted as Choukidar at Central Workshop and Development Training Institute, Patna, Bihar -Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Secretary – cum- Commissioner, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 The Additional Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5 The Chief Engineer, Tubewell Division, Patna 6 The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Patna 7 The Executive Engineer, Central Workshop Development Training Institute, Patna (Bihar) 8 The Assistant Engineer, Stock Subdivision, Central Workshop Development Training Institute, Patna -Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr R K Jain, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Suresh Kumar, AC to GP V *** 12 18.01.2011 The petitioner was posted as a Choukidar (Guard) at Pipeline Workshop and Store Division of the Minor Irrigation Department located at Karbigahiya in the town of Patna. It appears that in the said godown, large numbers of aluminium pipes are kept. It was found that about 89 aluminium pipes of 4” bore, 20’ in length, were stolen from the godown. Upon this, petitioner, on being asked, subsequently filed a criminal case which ended in a final form in the shape of occurrence true with no clue. Being the Guard of the godown, petitioner was put under suspension and ultimately a departmental proceeding was initiated. The basic charge was that such quantity of pipes cannot be removed from the godown surreptitiously without the knowledge and connivance of the 2 Guard. Four charges were framed which included charge on petitioner being involved in theft and responsible in the said theft of pipes. The fourth charge was that petitioner had not cooperated in enquiry because of which police could not make full verification. Upon notice to the petitioner, enquiry report was submitted. It is not in dispute that three of the charges as against the petitioner with regard to being responsible for the theft were found established. So far as the fourth charge about non- cooperation with the police for investigation is concerned, that, in the opinion of Enquiry Officer, was held to be not established. The enquiry report, having been submitted, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding on the three charges which found petitioner guilty but differed with the fourth charge and after issuance of notice to the petitioner, passed the punishment order imposing major punishment but retaining petitioner in service. Petitioner has come to this Court directly challenging the said order without going in appeal. On behalf of petitioner, a singular issue has been raised. It has been urged that when the Disciplinary Authority differed with the Enquiry Officer then it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to issue notice to the petitioner as to the reason for disagreement and then proceed to decide the matter. This having not been done, the dictum of law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others –Versus- B Karunakar and Others since reported in (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727 and Punjab National Bank and Others –Versus- Kunj Behari Misra since reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84 as also recent 3 decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Others – Versus- K K Verma since reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 46, is violated and, thus, the punishment cannot be sustained. Having considered the matter, in my view, the proposition, as broadly urged by the petitioner, is correct. It cannot be disputed that if the Disciplinary Authority differs with the enquiry report then it must inform the delinquent officer of the reason of disagreeing and seek his show cause and then proceed in the matter but, however, the broad the proposition may be, in my view, it does not apply to the facts of the present case. As noticed above, the first three charges clearly were that the petitioner was guilty of conniving in theft of large number of pipes. The fourth charge was only non-cooperation in subsequent enquiry and investigation by the police. The first three were the major charges which were held proved by the Enquiry Officer. They were sufficient for the punishment given even if the fourth charge is ignored in totality. It causes no prejudice to the petitioner. Even one of the three charges to which the departmental authorities agree were sufficient for the punishment as imposed which, considering the charge, was, to say the least, lenient. In such a situation, I am not inclined to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)