KANTI SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the service conditions of the appellant Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applies to the contract of employment of the appellant. Rule 49 of the said Rules provides what punishment may be awarded to a person governed by the said Rules. Three of them are: (1) Censor; (2) Withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage of Efficiency Bar; and (3) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders. Rule 55 of the said Rules contemplate an enquiry before awarding punishments as are awardable under the said Rules and prescribes the manner of conducting such enquiry. Rule 55A of the said Rules is an explanation to Rule 55 thereof. Rule 55A provides that without making an enquiry as elaborated in Rule 55, three of the punishments, as mentioned above, may be awarded upon allowing the delinquent to know the charges against him, giving an opportunity of making a representation in relation thereto and after considering such representation. In the instant case a charge-sheet was issued against the appellant, which contained four charges. One of the charges was unauthorised absence from 1st March, 1993 to 5th March, 1993 after giving an application for leave. The appellant gave a reply to the charge-sheet and thereupon an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into those charges. The Enquiry Officer enquired into the matter and then submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the appellant. He was, however, straightway punished. The punishment, as was awarded, was withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Inasmuch as the appellant was suspended in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding and inasmuch as such suspension was revoked, in purported compliance of the obligations under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, the punishment order mentioned that during the period of suspension the appellant shall not be entitled to anything over and above subsistence allowances. While the punishment was so awarded, the disciplinary authority held out that the charges against the appellant stand proved.

(2.) Originally the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking to challenge the suspension order. During the pendency of the writ petition, the punishment order was passed. The appellant. therefore, amended the writ petition to challenge the punishment order also.

(3.) At the hearing of the writ petition the enquiry report was produced. The enquiry report suggested that the Enquiry Officer opined that the charge that the appellant remained absent unauthorisedly from 1st March, 1993 to 5th March, 1993 after making an application for leave stood proved. The enquiry report did not suggest that any other charge levelled against the appellant in the charge-sheet stood proved.