VISHWANATH TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing a notification dated 11th March, 1994, whereby and whereunder while releasing the 5 petitioner from suspension two punishments were imposed, namely (a), that her would not be entitled for his salary except the amount of subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension and (b) from the date of the order, no promotion would be granted for three years. By the said notification, the departmental proceeding, started as back as on 6-7-1993, vide memo No. 923 and 924, under the provisions of the Civil Servants (Classification, Control & Appea!)Rules, was also cancelled.

(2.) It would appear that at the relevant time, the petitioner was functioning as District Sub Registrar, Begusarai. On account of certain allegations the State Government vide notification dated 6th July, 1993, contained in Annexure-16, placed the petitioner under suspension and started a departmental proceeding as indicated above. There is no dispute that the petitioner had challenged his order of suspension before this Court in CWJC No. 7001 of 1993. A Bench of this Court having found that the authorities had initiated a departmental proceeding and at that stage, charges were yet to be framed, dismissed the writ petition. It would appear the petitioner also moved the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 18510 of 1993 which was also dismissed on 14-1-1994 with a direction to the authorities to complete the departmental proceeding within a period of six months.

(3.) It has been contended that a bare reference to the letter of the District Magistrate, Begusarai, dated 3-6-1995 (Annexure-25) which was in response to the query of the Secretary to the Government, it would appear that under some confusion the departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner. He, therefore, I recommended that the departmental proceeding be at once dropped so that the petitioner can be exonerated from the charges. It was next contended that the impugned order is also otherwise illegal since it has been mechanically recorded even without due compliance of the principles of natural justice. Because although a departmental proceeding was started as back as on 6-7-1993, but neither any Inquiring Officer was appointed nor the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his innocence by producing documents and evidence. Therefore, in absence of the aforementioned formalities, the impugned order of punishment is quite illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.