LAWS(PAT)-2007-7-30

SANT PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 23, 2007
SANT PRASAD SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the Petitioner, who has retired as Excise Superintendent, has assailed the Order dated, 29th October, 2001, as contained in annexure -10 to the Writ Petition, whereby and whereunder his 25 per cent pension has been permanently withheld. The Petitioner by the same impugned Order has also been subjected to further punishment in the form of no payment of salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension i.e. 24th September, 1998 to 5th July, 1999.

(2.) THE fact, as much is necessary to be recorded for disposal of the case, lie in a very narrow compass. Of Bihar

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner in course of his submissions has assailed the impugned Order on several grounds but his main attack has revolved around the point that impugned Order is unsustainable on account of incurable defect its being in violation of principle of natural justice. In this context it has been further submitted by the learned Counsel that once the Petitioner was not held guilty for any of the five charges by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report, he could not have been punished unless he was given a notice by the disciplinary Authority containing his reasons for such difference of opinion. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this context has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narayan Mishra V/s. The State of Orissa reported in 1969 S.L.R. 657 wherein it has been held that the disciplinary Authority can definitely differ with the enquiry report but while doing so he must give a Show Cause Notice containing reason for differing with the enquiry report. In my view, the learned Counsel seems to be correct in his submissions in as much as giving such a Show Cause Notice by the disciplinary Authority would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In absence of affording of such an opportunity the entire set of unilateral action of disciplinary Authority by drawing a departmental proceeding with the framing of charges and passing an Order of punishment even if the charges are not found to be proved by the enquiry officer be wholly unjust and illegal. In that view of the matter, the resultant Order of punishment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. .