ARJUN THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to S.C. No.2.

(2.) THE petitioner has come to this Court for setting aside the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 553 dated 16.8.2003 (Annexure -9) by which he has been awarded punishment of censure as well as withholding of two increments for two years with non -cumulative effect. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that he had repeatedly refused to join the post to which he had been transferred and continued to file one case after another in this Court. When the matters were heard this Court took a serious view on the non -joining of the petitioner at his transferred place and ultimately by order dated 3.12.2001 passed in .L.P.A. No. 1439 of 2001 while dismissing the appeal this Court directed the petitioner to join within 15 days from the date of order failing which the State Government was directed to immediately suspend him and proceed departmentally. The petitioner's claim is that thereafter he submitted his joining in the Bihar Education Project but the same was not accepted and then kept on seeking clarification from the State authorities as well as from this Court by filing contempt application but the same was not heard. Ultimately he had joined at SCERT on 24.3.2005 where subsequently he was transferred.

(3.) THE second and more important submission by the learned counsel relates to the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner. It has been clearly stated in the writ petition enclosing the relevant notes in the departmental file as contained in Annexures -12 and 13 that when the issue of punishment went before the competent authority, namely, the Minister of the Department the punishment was proposed for warning only with revocation of suspension. However, the departmental Secretary was not satisfied with the same and requested that the petitioner should be awarded punishment of censure as well as withholding of two increments for two years with non -cumulative effect. When the matter went again before the Minister for review he approved the punishment of warning only to the petitioner as he was of the view that the punishment of censure as well as withholding of two increments for two years with non -cumulative effect was excessive. On a perusal of the said notes it appears that there has been no reconsideration of the earlier decision to award punishment of warning at the level of the Minister. In that view of the of the matter the award of the punishment of censure and withholding of two increments for two years with non -cumulative effect appears to be contrary to the decision taken earlier at the Cabinet Minister's level and the same can not stand.