HIRA LAL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application seeks to quash the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting major punishment on the petitioner by order dated 27.05.1996. The punishment, which survives, is reduction in the pay scale to the basic initial pay of the post of Junior Engineer, thus, depriving him of twenty two years of increment and for the period during which he remained under suspension, about five years, apart from subsistence allowance, no other payment to be made.

(2.) THE ground for seeking judicial review to challenge the said punishment order are basically two folds. Firstly, it is urged that when the Enquiry Officer submitted a report favourable to the petitioner to the Disciplinary Authority who chose not to disagree with the report but found a new charge from the proceedings and without any further show cause in this regard held the petitioner guilty and asked the petitioner to show cause against penalties indicated therein. Such procedure was contrary to law and clearly shows that authority had prejudged the issue vitiating the penalty order. Secondly, even the penalty order is a totally non -speaking order merely noting that on review of the material the show cause having been found unsatisfactory, penalty was being imposed. This, apart from showing that the authorities had prejudged the issue, shows that their mind set was predetermined and in absence of reasons thereof, the order could not Bihar Veterinary Association Versus State Of Bihar be sustained. In fine, it is submitted that the proceedings are vitiated as a matter of law.

(3.) IN 1979, petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Advance Planning Division, Giridih under the Department of Water Resources (Irrigation), Government of Bihar. In 1989, he was promoted to Junior Selection Grade by virtue of first time bound promotion granted. While posted at Khagaria, on 02.04.1991, he was put under suspension. On 10.02.1992, while in suspension, the petitioner was served chargesheet. Petitioner submitted detailed reply and sought for evidence which was to be relied on by the Department. The proceedings were then taken up but no order was being passed, as such, petitioner and some others moved this Court against suspension and this Court vacated the suspension by order dated 13.03.1996 passed in CWJC No. 67 of 1996 and analogous cases. Soon thereafter on 20.03.1996, petitioner was served with a second show cause notice (Annexure -7). This notice is significant as this is the foundation for petitioner 'schallenge. Along with this notice, copy of enquiry report dated 14.12.1993 was also provided to the petitioner.