Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1393 (PAT)

RAMNATH PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR

2011-07-11

NAVIN SINHA

body2011
ORDER : (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the ORDER :of punishment dated 10.10.2007 visiting him with stoppage of one increment and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. 3. The petitioner was issued a show cause and placed under Suspension on 25.7.2009 on the ground that the District Magistrate, Nalanda inspected the Attendance Register of the Headquarters at 9:35 A.M. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent indicative of his lack of sense of discipline and negligent attitude. He was required to file his show cause before the Circle Officer. The petitioner replied that he had proceeded to Biharsharif at 8:30 A.M. for delivery of certain important Government letters. He produced the acknowledgement from the concerned authority with regard to the aforesaid letters of that date. The Circle Officer opined that his explanation was fully acceptable. The District Magistrate then proceeded to pass the impugned ORDER :holding that the petitioner should have first come to the Headquarters, marked attendance and then proceed to Biharsharif. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a finding of fact about the correctness of the defence had been arrived at, if the District Magistrate as the disciplinary authority proposed to differ with it, even for a minor punishment, he was required to first ask the petitioner as to what was the hurry to proceed Biharsharif without marking attendance at the Headquarters. The petitioner would then have had an opportunity to explain the urgency which the District Magistrate may or may not have accepted. Denying him that opportunity, differing with the report of exoneration to indict him was not in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition was filed nearly two and half years ago. No counter affidavit has been filed till date. The Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter further. 6. The allegations are simple. The explanation has not been disbelieved. Bureaucratic procedures were not strictly followed by first marking attendance at the Headquarters and then proceeding to Biharsharif. That he did go to Biharsharif to deliver important letters is also not in dispute. In absence of any serious allegations the findings of fact and the nature of punishment imposed, it shall be counter productive to remand matters. 7. The ORDER :of punishment is accordingly set aside. 8. That he did go to Biharsharif to deliver important letters is also not in dispute. In absence of any serious allegations the findings of fact and the nature of punishment imposed, it shall be counter productive to remand matters. 7. The ORDER :of punishment is accordingly set aside. 8. To deny salary for the period of suspension, there has to be a finding that the suspension was justified. If it was unjustified, Rule 97 mandates that the delinquent is entitled to full salary. The Court has arrived at the finding that the impugned ORDER :was not justified. The suspension therefore automatically becomes unjustified. The petitioner is therefore is entitled to full salary for the period of suspension along with the increments withheld less what has been already paid to him as subsistence allowance. 9. Let this ORDER :be complied with within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this ORDER :. 10. The application stands disposed.