RABINDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 7.12.2007, passed by the City Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation (in short the PMC) and communicated vide Memo No. 2499 dated 10.12.07, issued under the signature of Additional City Commissioner, PMC, by which he has been inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in PMC in August, 1981. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PMC. It appears that for some acts of omission and commission, he was put under suspension vide order dated 6.8.2007 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. One Sri Chandra Nath Jha, Additional Commissioner, PMC was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Additional City Commissioner vide letter dated 16.8.2007 (Annexure-6) issued show cause with respect to allegations vide letter dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure-7) claiming to be innocent.

(2.) After consideration of the show cause reply, the Additional Commissioner however, in his report submitted on 5.12.2007 noticed that no specific charges were framed as yet and as such the departmental proceeding cannot proceed. However, differing with the report of the Additional Municipal Commissioner, the Municipal Commissioner, PMC vide order dated 7.12.2007 imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. It was further ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to any payment, save and except subsistence allowance already paid during suspension.

(3.) The petitioner states that he has been awarded major punishment without following the procedure provided in the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (in short the CCA Rules, 2005) and as such, unsustainable in law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 2005 and as he has already preferred representation before the Secretary, Urban Development (Appellate Authority) he should pursue the same as it can be treated as appeal.