BAL BHADRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petitioner has come before this Court twice, first time against the order of suspension and on the second occasion, he has filed the writ application for payment of salary. During the pendency of the writ application, the order dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-1) was issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub Divisional Education Officer, Lakhisarai, ordering punishment of stop-page of three increments with cumulative effect. This Court observed that the Petitioner would be free to challenge the order before the appellate authority in accordance with law. The Court also condoned the limitation in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner challenged the order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority which is contained in Annexure-2. The appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Munger Division rejected the plea of the Petitioner and held that he was guilty of the offences for which he was charged.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner was a major punishment and in view of the aforesaid facts, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry after giving the Petitioner notice and hearing him, if he duly appeared in the enquiry and thereafter pass an order recommending the punishment. It is submitted that merely by issuing a show cause and thereafter without holding a full-fledge enquiry to examine whether the Petitioner was absent from duty or he was responsible for dereliction of duty, an order of major punishment could not be is-sued. Referring to Clause 21 of the Bihar Rajya Rayakrit Prathamik Vidyalaya Shishak (Transfer and Disciplinary Rules, 2002, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect has been described as a major punishment.

(3.) On perusal of the pleadings in the writ application and the counter affidavit, it appears that the impugned orders do not indicate whether an enquiry was held, in which the Petitioner was noticed with respect to the allegations leveled against him, although the appellate order does speak of production of the register to indicate that the Petitioner was absent from duty. Nevertheless, since it has been settled by several decisions of this (sic) Court, one of them being the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84 and the case of Nawaiesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2005 4 PLJR 63 that it is essential that opportunity should be given to the incumbent before inflicting a major punishment, it would be proper to remand the matter for the said purpose I thus quash Annexure-1 and 2.