Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 269 (PAT)

Masomat Phool Devi v. State of Bihar

2012-02-14

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time original petitioner was serving as Block Development Officer, Babubarhi within Madhubani district. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the notification of the State Government, bearing Memo No. 17 dated 7.1.2000, Annexures-6 whereunder besides being censured his five increments have also been withheld without cumulative effect. He has further questioned the validity of the subsequent corrigendum notification dated 11.3.2000, Annexure-7 whereunder punishment notification dated 7.1.2000, Annexure-6 has been modified releasing him from suspension with direction that he shall not be entitled for salary beyond subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Further prayer is to quash the registered Memo No. 425 (Agriculture) dated 6.4.2004, Annexure-10 whereunder punishment imposed on the petitioner under notification dated 11.3.2000, Annexure-7 has been kept maintained. 3. It appears, original petitioner was served with registered Memo No. 1358 dated 30.8.1993, Annexure-1 asking him to submit reply in the light of letter No. 709 dated 15.4.1993 of the District Magistrate, Madhubani alleging misconduct, irregularities committed by the original petitioner. In response to the said show cause notice original petitioner submitted his reply dated 16.10.1993, Annexure-2 refuting allegations levelled against him. Having submitted his reply, original petitioner was neither called upon to appear in any proceeding before the departmental authorities nor any enquiry report was served on him. Straightway he was served with the impugned punishment notification dated 7.1.2000, 11.3.2000, Annexures-6, 7. It further appears, under letter dated 24.4.2003, original petitioner was served with the enquiry report justifying the punishment imposed on him under notification dated 7.1.2000,11.3.2000, Annexures-6,7. Having received the enquiry report, original petitioner submitted before the authorities under representation dated 23.8.2003, Annexure-9 that punishment imposed under notification dated 7.1.2000, 11.3.2000, Annexures-6, 7 is arbitrary infracting the principles of natural justice, as he was not given any opportunity to object to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which punishment has been imposed on him. The authorities did not consider it appropriate to review the earlier punishment notification dated 7.1.2000, 11.3.2000, Annexures-6,7 and rejected such request under letter dated 6.4.2004, Annexure-10. 4. The authorities did not consider it appropriate to review the earlier punishment notification dated 7.1.2000, 11.3.2000, Annexures-6,7 and rejected such request under letter dated 6.4.2004, Annexure-10. 4. By filing the present writ petition, original petitioner has impugned not only the earlier two notifications dated 7.1.2000, 11.3.2000 but also the contents of the registered letter dated 6.4.2004 on the ground that punishment in the light of the enquiry report dated 16.3.1999 could not have been imposed under the impugned orders without serving the same on him. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, original petitioner left for heavenly abode whereafter his widow has been substituted. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the substituted petitioner that as punishment notification dated 7.1.2000, 11.3.2000, Annexures-6,7 and registered letter dated 6.4.2004, Annexure-10 maintaining the aforesaid two punishment notifications have been issued without granting the original petitioner opportunity to refute the findings recorded in the enquiry report dated 16.3.1999, original petitioner has been seriously prejudiced and on account of the prejudice caused not only the two earlier punishment notifications but also registered letter maintaining the two punishment notifications is required to be set aside. 7. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the punishment was imposed on the original petitioner without serving on the original petitioner the enquiry report dated 16.3.1999, as such, I have no option but to set aside the punishment notifications dated 7.1.2000, 11.3.2000, Annexures-6,7 as also registered letter dated 6.4.2004, Annexure-10, which are, accordingly, set aside directing the authorities to release the amount of increments due to the original petitioner in favour of the substituted petitioner as also arrears of salary for the suspension period as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the competent authority. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.