CHANDRABALI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent nos. 2 to 4. Petitioner seeks quashing of the part of the order contained in Memo No. 8941/03 dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the Registrar of Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga by which petitioner has been awarded punishment of deduction of rank from routine clerk, i.e., a Class-III Post, to peon which is a Class-IV post. Petitioner further seeks direction to the respondents to pay salary which is due from October 2003 to June 2005.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this writ application the petitioner raises short question that in view of the admitted position that the punishment of reduction of rank from routine clerk a Class-III Post to a peon a Class-IV post would be major punishment, a full-fledged departmental proceeding was mandatory in view of the provision contained in Statute 16(1) and (2) of the Statute of the University laying down general conditions of service and employee of the Patna, Bihar, Ranchi, Bhagalpur, Magadh, L.N. Mithila & K.S.D. Sanskrit Universities.

(3.) It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was issued a show cause notice vide Annexure-7 upon certain recommendation by the permanent establishment committee to show cause as to why he should not be subjected to reduction in rank. The petitioner, thereafter, filed show cause which has been appended as Annexure-8 and vide Annexure-9, a composite order of punishment and transfer was passed inflicting punishment of reduction from routine clerk, a Class-III Post, to a peon which is a Class-IV post and also transferring him to another place. It is submitted that the Statute 16(2) clearly lays down as to what procedure is required to be followed if the authority concerned is contemplating to inflict a major punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. It is submitted that none of the procedure which has been specified in Clause 16(2) note (4) has been followed as no memorandum of charge alongwith statement of fact has been served upon the petitioner and, thereafter, neither any inquiry has been held nor was any evidence produced. The petitioner was also not given any opportunity of examining the witnesses. For better appreciation the relevant passage from the Statute 16(2) contained in note 4 are reproduced as under--