Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 812 (PAT)

Brij Bihari Singh v. State of Bihar

2005-09-09

body2005
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Orders contained in annexures 12 and 17 dated 6.9.1999 and 15.1.2002 respectively are under challenge. 3. Vide annexure 12, the petitioner only after being asked for explanation has been given following punishments:- (i) he was reverted to his basic pay scale, and (ii) his five annual increments with cumulative effect were held up. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been punished and major punishments have been awarded to him without initiation of a departmental proceeding as required under the provisions of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules"), It is further submitted that only on the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner has been held guilty and punishments, as referred to above, have been given to him. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents not denying the fact that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on the basis of explanation furnished by him he has been punished. 6. Owing to the nature of the punishment given to the petitioner a departmental proceeding was required to be initiated and only after finding the petitioner guilty, necessary punishment could have been given to him. 7. The consequence of the order of punishments could not have been dealt with in a summary manner only by asking an explanation from the petitioner about the charges. 8. Since the petitioner has been awarded major punishments, his case could have been governed under the provisions of Rule 55 of the Rules. 9. Since no proceeding, at all, was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 55 of the Rules, the action of the authorities in passing the order of punishment cannot be approved, rather the orders impugned, on this score alone, should be held wholly without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of Natural Justice. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and orders, as contained in annexures 12 and 17, are set aside. 11. The respondent authorities, if so advised, may proceed in accordance with law in the matter.