RAMAVTAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties.

(2.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by the Orders dated, 27th February, 2006 and 25th January, 2007. The Orders visit him with the punishment of forfeiture of his entire pension.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Orders of punishment suffer from the vice of non application of mind to the reply to the second Show Cause Notice. There is no discussion, even brief, to reflect consideration of the cause shown. The impugned Orders are non speaking and fit to be set aside. Secondly, there has been grave irregularities in procedures during the departmental enquiry in as much as charge No. 5 is concerned which was subsequently split into sub -charges 9 to 15. Despite a request for the vouchers on which the allegations of financial irregularities against the Petitioner was based they were neither produced in the enquiry, nor copies given to the Petitioner, much less opportunity to examine the same. There was no finding of any misconduct or negligence causing pecuniary loss to the Government. That the proved charges were not a grave misconduct to justify the punishment.