Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 333 (PAT)

Bishwanath Ram v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-21

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 8, issued vide memo no. 2370 dated 26.8.1998, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished in a departmental proceeding and following punishments have been passed: (a) The petitioner will be reverted from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer and will be entitled for the salary, which he was getting before the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. (b) No salary except the subsistence allowance shall be paid to the petitioner for the period he was under suspension. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner earlier had moved this Court against the same set of order of punishment in C.W.J.C. No. 9141 of 1998 and the writ application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order, as contained in annexure 9, holding that the impugned order of punishment appears to be harsh, and, accordingly, this Court directed the petitioner to represent his case before the appropriate authority for fresh consideration of the matter. The petitioner, accordingly, prayed before the disciplinary authority to reconsider his case pertaining to the punishment, but the authorities without considering the representation filed by the petitioner and due regard to the orders passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 9, passed the order impugned, as contained in annexure 8, reiterating the same version, which was disclosed in the earlier order of punishment, giving rise to this writ application. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when this writ application was listed for admission before this Court on 22.11.2000, this Court having regard to the earlier order passed by this Court directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the impugned order of punishment so as to pass appropriate punishment keeping in view the earlier order passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 9, but till date the authorities have not passed any order nor they have reconsidered the matter in utter disregard of the order passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 9. 5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, it is not disclosed therein as to whether the matter was reconsidered by the authorities pursuant to order dated 22.11.2000. 6. 5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, it is not disclosed therein as to whether the matter was reconsidered by the authorities pursuant to order dated 22.11.2000. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner now contended that since the charges framed against the petitioner were not found to be serious and mere irregularities were found by the inquiry officer, the order impugned passed by the. authorities cannot be said to be commensurate with the finding of the inquiry officer. It is also contended by learned counsel that the respondent authorities have not reconsidered the matter in light of the order passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 9. 7. From the materials on record, it appears that the inquiry officer submitted a report stating therein that the charges have not been found so serious against the petitioner but, he had not discharged his duties in accordance with the procedures and the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the inquiry report, passed the order of punishment, as referred to above. 8. Prima facie, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner appears to be disproportionate to the guiit and it appears that the petitioner has been subjected to major punishment, though the charges were not proved against him. This Court, keeping in view these aspects of the matter, therefore had issued the order, as contained in annexure 9, directing the respondents to reconsider the matter on the question of punishment and again this Court in this case directed the authorities to reconsider the matter, but the authorities appear to be adamant in not reconsidering the matter despite direction issued by this Court. 9. Per se, it appears to me that the order of punishment passed by the authorities is not commensurate with the guilt and the authorities, in that view of the matter, erred in passing the impugned order of punishment contrary to the materials on record. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier order passed by this Court, as referred to above, in my opinion, the order impugned appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate to the guiit of the petitioner. 11. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier order passed by this Court, as referred to above, in my opinion, the order impugned appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate to the guiit of the petitioner. 11. It is needless to say that the petitioner despite several directions of this Court could not get any relief at the hands of the respondents, and, in this view of the matter, no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter back to the respondents authorities. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 13. In the result, this application is allowed and the order, as contained in annexure 8, is set aside, 14. No order as to costs.