PRADIP CHANDRA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order contained in Memo No. 605 dated 17.5.1995 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, by which the petitioner has been awarded certain punishment as described at serial nos. 2 to 4 of the said order. The further prayer is for quashing of the appellate order issued under Memo No. 638 dated 7.2.1998 under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government which was communicated to the petitioner under letter No. 312 dated 17.3.1998, by which he was informed that the appeal/representation filed by him has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are noticed here under: The petitioner while being posted as Assistant Engineer at Mashan Canal Division No. 1 at Ramnagar was made accused in Mahalghat P.S. Case No. 10/93 dated 21.1.1993 and charge-sheet No. 12/93 dated 25.2.1993 was also submitted in the said case. Subsequently cognizance was also taken for the offences under Sections 341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alongwith other two accused was granted bail by the court concerned on 21.6.1993 and subsequently on the basis of compromise and the fact that the offences were compoundable all the accused were acquitted and discharged from their liabilities of their respective, bail bonds by order dated 21.6.1993. The ghost of the said case, however, did not die and the Department placed the petitioner under suspension by issuing order under Memo No. 1, dated 6.1.1994 under the signature of the Joint Secretary of the Department invoking the provision of Rule 49A of the Civil Sen/ices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules on the charge that he was an accused in Mahalghat P.S. Case No.10/93 in. which charge-sheet has also been submitted on 25.2.1993. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating the facts as they were inasmuch as he stood acquitted on 21.6.1993 itself and thus he prayed that the proceedings be closed against him. The petitioner was, however, visited with the order impugned dated 17.5.1995 by which though his suspension was revoked from the date of the order but he was inflicted three punishments being censure which was to be entered in his character roll for the year 1992-93, warning that if in future his conduct remained the same then he would be given a major punishment and finally that for the period of suspension he would not be entitled for anything beyond the subsistence allowance. The petitioner represented before the Joint Secretary against the said order which was also rejected by the order dated 7.2.1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order by challenging the very initiation of the departmental proceeding which, according to him, was based on a charge which did not exist on the day the same was framed and the petitioner was put under suspension. He submits that the respondents have committed grave illegality and irregularity which also smacks of bias and mala fide. He submits that when the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court then the department could not have acted against him and that too on the wrong premise since the case already stood disposed of much before the petitioner being put under suspension and so charged. He submits that in any view of the matter for the reasons aforesaid the ground and basis of the charge and suspension itself being non est, the entire proceeding and finally passing of the impugned order stands vitiated in law. For the same reason the appellate order also deserves to be set aside for the reason that it is a cryptio order of rejection without even discussing the issues remotely.