BADRI NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Standing Counsel No. 11, for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in memo no. 266 dated 21.5.2003 (Annexure -6) passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai by which he has been punished in a departmental proceeding and awarded punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect and the period of his suspension has been treated as not spent on duty and it has further been ordered that he shall be paid only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the same charges criminal proceedings had also been initiated but subsequent to the passing of the order by the disciplinary authority he has been acquitted on 31.7.2003 in the criminal case. However, it is admitted that the said acquittal was made granting him the benefit of doubt since the prosecution had failed to produce any worthwhile evidence before the court. It is secondly submitted by the learned counsel that in the second show cause filed by the petitioner he has raised several points after submission of the enquiry report but those points have not been discussed by the disciplinary authority and for the said reason, order of punishment cannot be sustained. In this respect learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chandradip Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Others : 2000(3) PUR 64. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has not given his finding on the basis of any documents since it is evident from the enquiry report itself that no document was produced before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer despite several notices and adjournments and the enquiry report is based only upon the photocopies of the documents which were produced by the petitioner in support of his defence.