BISHNU CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.9.2001 passed by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, whereby and whereunder two punishments, namely, (a) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and (b) no payment of salary for the period of suspension over and above the subsistence allowance, have been imposed. The writ petition was filed on 27.8.2002. On 10.9.2002 the writ application was admitted for final hearing. Till date, however, I find no counter affidavit on record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits that as per the records available with him the counter affidavit was filed but does not have any proof of service of such counter affidavit on learned counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstance, I am disposing of the writ application on the basis of the materials on record and pleadings made in the writ application. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide memo No. 131 dated 2.2.2000 under the signature of the Director Primary Education, Bihar framing charge against the petitioner to the effect that he remained in judicial custody from 10.11. 1999 to 10.12.1999 and misrepresented before the authorities that he was undergoing medical treatment for the period 7.11.1999 to 19.12.1999 for the purpose of availing medical leave. The charge against the petitioner was that he kept the department in dark by concealing the fact that he remained in judicial custody from 10.11.1999 to 10.12.1999. Petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Lecturer in District Education Training Institute, Bikram, Patna. By the same order dated 2.2.2000 the petitioner was put under suspension. The enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 24.1.2001 (Annexure-8) submitted his report holding charge no.1 and 2 to be proved. As regards, charge No.3 the enquiry officer held the same partly proved. While recording his finding the enquiry Officer also made recommendation that strong warning should be issued to the delinquent and he should be released from suspension. The disciplinary authority, however, by the impugned order dated 20.9.2001(Annexure-1) imposed the punishment, as indicated above, which is stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.