Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 484 (JHR)

Hardeo Ram v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2006-04-27

R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
Order Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 231 dated 18.3.1997 (Annexure-5), issued under the signature of respondent no. 3, by which certain punishments have been awarded. 3. Petitioner was charged for not attending the monthly meetings of 20-point programme in Rohtas Zila between 18.1.1996 to 18.6.1996. He was suspended on 6.7.1996 and a departmental proceeding was initiated. The enquiry officer found that there was justification for not attending the meetings held on 18.1.1996, 20.2.1996 and 18.6.1996. The Enquiry Officer found that the charge of negligence was proved for not attending the meeting held on 18.3.1996. Accordingly, by impugned order (annexure-5), the following punishments were awarded-(a) the period of suspension (6.7.1996 to 8.3.1997) was not to be treated on duty and for this period nothing will be paid except the subsistence allowance. However, this period was to be considered for pension etc., (b) for recording a warning in the ACR of 1996-97, (c) after revocation of suspension, he will be posted at non-works. 4. Mr. Samir Saurav, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised short submission relying on a judgment Shri Mahavir Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1988 PLJR 82, in-which it was held that the employee ought to have been given an opportunity to show cause why clauses (3) and (5) of Rule 97 of Bihar Service Code should not be applied in his case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code stipulates that full pay and allowance should only be given when the delinquent has fully been exonerated but in the present case, petitioner has not been fully exonerated and as such he has not been given full pay and allowances for the suspension period. 6. I find force in the submission of Mr. Saurav Arun, appearing for the petitioner that in view of the said judgment of Shri Mahavir Prasad (supra), an opportunity to show cause should have been given to the petitioner as to why clauses (3) and (5) of Rule, 1997 should not be applied in his case. Accordingly, the said punishment regarding payment of nothing except the subsistence allowance, during suspension period, is set aside. It will be open to the competent authority to consider the question de novo after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed against him. 7. Accordingly, the said punishment regarding payment of nothing except the subsistence allowance, during suspension period, is set aside. It will be open to the competent authority to consider the question de novo after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed against him. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, there will be no order as to costs.