Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 72 (PAT)

Ravindra Kumar Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2009-01-20

NAVIN SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 2.8.2000 and 21.8.2000 by which punishment of recovery of Rs. 2,99,782/- has been ordered by deducting 50% from the salary through his service dues and thereafter from the retiral benefits if the amounts remained unrealized. The punishment further orders that nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be paid for the period of suspension, but which shall be counted for pensionary benefits and annual increments. Censure has been directed to be entered in his character roll for the period 1957-1958. 3. The petitioner was suspended on 22.1.1993 and proceeded against depart- mentally on allegations of alleged loss to the Government with regard to the cement bags arising out of his conduct. The petitioner submitted his show cause when final orders came to be passed in the departmental proceeding. Out of three charges he was exonerated of Charge-1 on merits even while holding him partially guilty for non-placement of accounts in time. He was held guilty and indicted on Charge-2 while exonerated of Charge No. 3. The respondents then proceeded to issue him second show cause notice on 26.7.1995 proposing to differ with the exoneration when the petitioner filed his reply to the same leading to the final orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the second show cause dated 26.7.1995 was not in consonance with the law and communicated a final decision already taken observing the formality of a second show cause notice as a ritual. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposing the application submitted that the petitioner has not alleged any illegality in the departmental proceedings and in any event the punishment was minor. 6. The right of the disciplinary authority to differ with an enquiry report stands well established. It is equally well settled that if the enquiry officer has exonerated the delinquent, the disciplinary authority while exercising his right to differ with the same is required to give a ond show cause notice setting out the findings in the enquiry report alongwith the tentative reasons for which he proposes to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. This is considered necessary to enable the delinquent to file his appropriate reply for consideration by the disciplinary authority. This is considered necessary to enable the delinquent to file his appropriate reply for consideration by the disciplinary authority. If this is not done, the delinquent does not have the benefit to know as to what is passing the mind of the disciplinary authority and for what reasons he proposes to differ with the report of exoneration. The second show cause notice dated 26.7.1995, on consideration by this Court, is cryptic. No reasons have been set out even tentatively by a brief discussion for reasons of such difference of opinion. Additionally, from the last paragraph of the show cause notice dated 26.7.1995 this Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that it was in fact no second show cause, but communication of a final decision already taken fulfilling the formality of a second show cause notice. 7. The argument of the State that since the punishment was minor it warrants no interference, does not appeal to this Court. Even a minor punishment has to be in consonance with the law, especially when it is visiting the delinquent with severe financial consequences. 8. The impugned orders dated 2.8.2000 and 21.8.2000 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law from the stage of submission of the enquiry report and complete the departmental proceedings in accordance with law within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, provided the petitioner himself cooperates. 9. If the proceedings are not concluded within the aforesaid period for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, considering that the punishment was minor in nature, the respondents shall be precluded from proceeding any further against the petitioner on the same charges when the amount deducted shall be returned to the petitioner. 10. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated.