Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1082 (PAT)

Chandreshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar

2013-09-04

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2013
ORDER A counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 is on record. With consent of the parties, this writ petition has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order of the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms as communicated to him under memo no. 1662 dated 22.08.2005, as contained in Annexure 3. By order contained therein, the petitioner has been inflicted with two punishments i.e. warning and stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is concerned, it is, undoubtedly, a major punishment. That being so, the same could not be inflicted except pursuant to a departmental proceeding duly initiated and conducted. Petitioner has clearly averred that no departmental proceeding, at all, was initiated, much less conducted. He placed on record that by Annexure 1, he was asked to show cause as to why appropriate action be not taken against him for certain dereliction. By Annexure 2, the petitioner filed a show cause, which was followed by the order of punishment as contained in Annexure 3. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3, it is stated that there was no necessity of initiating a departmental proceeding; inasmuch as the punishment, that was contemplated to be imposed upon the petitioner, was minor punishment. Thus, it stands admitted that no departmental proceeding was at all initiated and a major punishment was inflicted. 5. State is wrong to state that punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is not a major punishment. Reference may be made to Rule 14 (vi) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. Even in the earlier Rule, the position was the same, enduring such punishment as major punishment. Thus, on State’s own showing the said punishment being a major one, the same could not have been inflicted except in contemplation of and pursuant to a duly constituted departmental proceeding, which, admittedly, has not been done in the present case. It may also be noticed that the petitioner sought to prefer an appeal, but the same was relegated to the same very authority, who had decided and ordered infliction of the punishment as aforesaid. 6. It may also be noticed that the petitioner sought to prefer an appeal, but the same was relegated to the same very authority, who had decided and ordered infliction of the punishment as aforesaid. 6. Having heard the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as enumerated above, in my view, the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure 3, cannot be sustained for the reason that it is inflicting a major punishment without a departmental proceeding having been instituted or conducted. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of punishment, as contained in Annexure 3, is quashed and consequently the so called appellate order, as contained in Annexure 7, also stands quashed. This writ petition is allowed. The consequential effect would be given to the petitioner by the department if the increment has been withheld. All payments would be made to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the concerned authority.