GOPINATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Field Operator in Plane Protection Scheme under the Agriculture Department and at the relevant time was posted at Mokamah, has been discharged from his services by an order dated 10-12-1979, contained in Annexure '1', of the Plant Protection Officer (Respondent No. 3) in pursuance of a departmental proceeding started against him.

(2.) The petitioner had joined his service in the aforesaid department in July, 1955, and made incharga of the Mokamah Centre in the year 1971. On the night of 19/20 December, 197l, and of the 30th December, 19/1, certain theft took place in the Godown under the charge of the petitioner with respect to which a First Information Report was lodged and although the police submitted a final form in favour of the petitioner the Government thought to institute a departmental proceeding and ultimately passed the impugned order of his discharge.

(3.) Various arguments were raised on behalf of the petitioner, namely, that the enquiry was held behind his back and certain papers were not supplied on which account he could not file an effective show cause, the ground which ultimately has prevailed, upon us is that based upon Clause (ii) of Rule 166 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, which provides that after the authority competent to impose penalty has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the accused officer should be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiring authority and be called upon to show cause within two weeks against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted. In short, notwithstanding the amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution of India this provision of the State Rule still demands the giving of the second notice against the proposed penalty, Admittedly this procedure has not been followed in this case.