ANIL KUMAR ARYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed "for quashing order of penalties dtd. 21/11/2014 issued vide memo no. 16040 contained in Annexure-18, issued by under the signature of respondent no. 5, whereby and where under in a departmental proceeding penalties have been imposed that "Censure for the year 2012-13 and with holding of three increments of pay with cumulative effect and also for quashing the memo no. 5036 dtd. 1/4/2015 contained in Annexure-23, under which review application has been rejected and order of penalties issued vide memo no.16040 dtd. 21/11/2014 has been maintained as status quo and for quashing the memo no.2687 dtd. 19/2/2015 contained in Annexure-22 whereby and whereunder order has been passed by the respondent no. 5 that for suspension period (i.e. from 12/12/2012 to 6/10/2014) 25% salary shall be deducted from the paid salary".

(3.) The short facts according to the petitioner are that in June, 1995, he was appointed on the post of Deputy Collector and in due course he was posted as Senior Deputy Collector at Muzaffarpur. In the year 2010, he was given the charge of many departments including that of in-charge Jail Superintendent of Madhubani, when an occurrence took place and one of the prisoners escaped from Madhubani District Jail. The petitioner was not present in the jail premises at the relevant time and took serious action against the Head Warder, Gate Warder and Jailor. An FIR was registered with the local police station. Upon the petitioner informing the District Magistrate, Madhubani about the escape of an under-trial prisoner Md. Sabir, the District Magistrate inquired into the matter and sent an inquiry report to the I.G. (Prison), Bihar, Patna, stating that the Head Warder, Gate Warder and Jailor were responsible because they had not maintained gate register and had illegally brought under-trial prisoners for painting works of the temple adjacent to the jail, in course of which Md. Sabir found an opportunity to escape. On 12/12/2012, however the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, culminating into the order of punishment dtd. 21/11/2014 by way of censure and stoppage of three increments of salary with cumulative effect (Annexure-18). A further order dtd. 19/2/2015 was passed whereby the petitioner was allowed 75% of his salary to be paid during the period of suspension (Annexure-22). An application for review against the aforesaid order did not also find favour with the authority in terms of order dtd. 1/4/2015 (Annexure-23).