Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 248 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Bishwanath Ram

2007-02-05

AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, Govt. Advocate No. V, appearing in support of the appeal. 2. The sole respondent was, at the material time, an Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. He was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges. The departmental proceeding continued for a long time and consequently the respondent remained under suspension for about seven years. In the departmental enquiry conducted by the Chief Engineer the charges that could be establised against the petitioner were not of a serious nature and it only appeared that the delinquent had failed to follow the prescribed procedure in discharge of his duties. 3. On the basis of the enquiry report the petitioner was given the punishment of reversion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer on the salary that he was getting before his promotion as Executive Engineer. It was further directed that for the period of suspension the respondent will be entitled only to subsistence allowance. 4. The respondent challenged the punishment order before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9141/1998. That writ petition was disposed of by a Single Judge by an order dated 21.7.1999. The relevant extract from the order is as follows: "There appears no dispute that the Chief Engineer in the enquiry report has found that the charge against the petitioner were not serious. This also cannot be disputed that having regard the enquiry report as well as the charges, as alleged against the petitioner, the impugned punishment appears harsh. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner may file a representation before the appropriate authority of the Government in this regard, which may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law." 5. In pursuance of the order the respondent made a representation. The respondents representation was rejected by a non-speaking order dated 24.6.2000 by which the earlier decision awarding him the aforesaid two punishments was reiterated. 6. The respondent challenged the order dated 24.6.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 11805/ 2000 (from which the present appeal arises). The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition was placed noticed that the impugned order dated 24.6.2000 was apparently passed without following the directions of this Court. 6. The respondent challenged the order dated 24.6.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 11805/ 2000 (from which the present appeal arises). The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition was placed noticed that the impugned order dated 24.6.2000 was apparently passed without following the directions of this Court. It, accordingly, made an interim order to the following effect: "In the facts and circumstances, an opportunity is given to the respondents to reconsider the impugned order as as to pass an appropriate punishment in keeping with the earlier order of this Court, contained in Annexure 9 and for that purpose, this matter is adjourned for four weeks." 7. Finally the writ petition came to be taken up four and a half years later on 21.3.2005 when the Court was informed that despite the interim order the authorities had not reconsidered the matter and had not passed any fresh order on the question of punishment to be awarded to the respondent in light of findings of the enquiry report and the observations of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9141/1998. The writ Court, therefore, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, quashed the order of punishment and declined to remit the matter to the departmental authorities observing that they had unnecessarily taken an adamant attitude. 8. On hearing Mr. Sharma we find no infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court so as to warrant any interference in the matter in an internal Court appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 9. The order is being passed in presence of Mr. Anil Kumar, counsel appearing for the sole respondent.