PARMESHWAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

(2.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dtd. 22/8/2017 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been punished stopping of two increments with cumulative effect.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner limits his submission to the legality of the order on the ground that the petitioner had faced the departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges in his enquiry report. The disciplinary authority, namely, the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, has however proceeded to punish the petitioner solely on the basis of directions issued by the State Government. The order does not reflect any application of mind. That apart learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law if the disciplinary authority does not agree with with the findings of the enquiry officer and the enquiry report he shall mention the reasons for disagreeing from the findings of the enquiry officer and will send a show cause notice to the delinquent giving out the reasons of disagreement. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1988) 7 SCC, 84 (Punjab National Bank & Ors. vrs. Kunj Behari Misra) and 2013 (3) PLJR, 408 (SC) [S.P. Malhotra vrs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.).