YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, common to both C.W.J.C. No. 1299 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 13006 of 2010, has preferred these two appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the two writ petitions have been allowed to the extent indicated in the order, and the matter has been remitted to the learned disciplinary authority for a fresh order in accordance with law and the observations made therein. C.W.J.C. No. 12990 of 2010 has given rise to L.P.A. No. 1790 of 2010, and C.W.J.C. No. 13006 of 2010 has given rise to L.P.A. No. 1829 of 2010. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the two appeals may be indicated. The appellant is an Executive Engineer in the services of the Bihar Government, and was transferred from Araria to Ara Municipality as Chief Municipal Engineer and he had joined on 27.10.2009. He received notice dated 17.2.2010, calling him upon to explain the position with respect to the alleged acts of omission and commission mentioned therein. On consideration of the cause shown by him, the learned disciplinary authority passed the order dated 8.4.2010, whereby the punishment of censure and deprivation of three increments with non-cumulative effect was inflicted on him. The order of punishment is impugned in C.W.J.C. No. 13006 of 2010.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits in support of the appeals that, in view of the tenor of the notice dated 17.2.2010, the same cannot be taken to be a show-cause notice with a view to inflict punishment. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the order of punishment and the appellate order are cryptic and do not disclose consideration of the issues raised by the appellant in the cause shown by him before the learned disciplinary authority, or in his memo of appeal. He also submits that after the leaned Single Judge has held that charge no. 1, the most significant of the charges, is vague, there is no justification to remit the matter to the learned disciplinary authority to re-determine the quantum of punishment. He submits in the same vein that the notings in the file maintained by the respondent authorities in the routine course of business disclose a clear recommendation to record censure against the appellant. He also submits that the core of his defence, namely, the short period of stay at Araria, and that he had imposed a fine on the Contractor for the delay in completion of the work, has not been taken into account by the learned disciplinary authority, nor by the learned appellate authority. He next submits that the transfer order, being integral part of the order of punishment, is inseparable and punitive in nature. Learned counsel lastly submits that the learned Single Judge has found fault with the order of punishment, as a result of which the order of transfer automatically falls to the ground.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General No. 5 has supported the order passed by the respondent authorities.