UPENDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE present writ application is pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on a strict construction of the law and procedure regulating the departmental proceedings to submit that the charges were served upon the petitioner of alleged irregularities in the construction of Toilets in respect of which a show cause had been asked from him which he failed to reply.

(3.) THE counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents would acknowledge the fact that a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed to re -hold an enquiry after exoneration of the petitioner in the previous enquiry as contained in the report at Annexure 6. The counter affidavit would simply state that the findings of the previous Enquiry Officer were "incomplete". The allegations of the petitioner that notwithstanding the enquiry report, the fresh Enquiry Officer did not associate the petitioner with the enquiry is not controverted. The contention of the petitioner that he was never served copy of the enquiry report or opportunity to show cause is likewise not denied. Learned Counsel for the respondents however sought to submit that what was imposed upon the petitioner was a minor punishment for which the procedure under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was required to be followed. Irrespective of the fact that nomenclature of Rule 55 was included by the respondents, the proceeding would essentially be under Rule 55A. The petitioner had adequate opportunity to present his case and which has been considered and therefore he cannot be said to have been prejudiced.