Chaturgun Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 197 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11494 of 2013
     ======================================================

Chaturgun Prasad Son Of Late Banke Lal Resident Of Mohalla - Solra, Post Office - Solra, Police Station - Paraiya, District - Gaya, dismissed and retired from the post of Revenue Karamchari Belaganj Anchal, District - Gaya

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary of Personnel and Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya

4. The District Magistrate - Cum - Collector, Gaya

5. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Gaya

6. The Circle Officer, Belaganj, Anchal, District - Gaya

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, Advocate Mr.Lala Sheshendra Narayan Rais, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay, G.A.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-01-2023

The instant writ application has been filed for following

reliefs:

(i) For quashing the letter no. 195(Mu)

dated 20.4.2011 issued under signature of Collector,

Gaya and letter no. 132(4) dated 4.4.2011 issued under

the signature of Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land

Reforms Development, Government of Bihar, Patna by

these letters following order has been passed. Patna High Court CWJC No.11494 of 2013 dt.17-01-2023

(a) That the petitioner will not be paid any

amount except subsistence allowance for

the period of suspension.

(b) That 25% pension of the petitioner will be

held for ever.

(c) That misappropriated amount of Rs.

33,552/- (Thirty three thousand five

hundred fifty two) will be recovered from

the pension of the petitioner in equal

proportionate.

(ii) For commanding the respondents

authorities to release the entire amount of subsistence

allowance which has been withheld by clause (a) of

impugned order passed under clause 43(b) of Bihar

Pension Rule is not permissible under the eye of law.

(iii) For commanding the respondent

authority to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis

of time to time revised pay scale with granting the

scheme of A.C.P."

2. In order to assail the order of punishment, petitioner

has made two-fold submissions.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11494 of 2013 dt.17-01-2023

3. Firstly, impugned order has been passed without

considering the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner and

as such, same is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that in terms of Rules 18(3) and (4) of Bihar Government

Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005

(hereinafter referred to as 'C.C.A. Rules, 2005'), it is mandatory

for the disciplinary authority to deal with the defence of the

petitioner. In this case, without considering the reply to the show

cause filed by the petitioner, impugned order of punishment has

been passed.

4. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that punishment of non-payment of salary for the period of

suspension has been awarded without affording an opportunity to

petitioner to file his response to the purported punishment. The

petitioner, in support of his submission, has relied upon some

decisions of this Hon'ble Court, which have been reported in 1988

PLJR 82, 1989 PLJR 147 and 1995 (2) PLJR 616 (Smt. Vidya

Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).

5. Learned counsel for the State, in reply, contends that

the order of punishment does not suffer from any infirmity or

illegality. After following the due process of law, order of

punishment has been passed. He submits that orders, as contained Patna High Court CWJC No.11494 of 2013 dt.17-01-2023

in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition, have been passed on the

basis of materials available on record and as such, same requires

no interference. However, learned counsel for the State is unable

to controvert the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that

in the impugned order, there is no mention of consideration of

reply to the second show cause filed by the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. From bare perusal of the impugned orders i.e. orders

contained in letter no. 195(Mu) dated 20.4.2011 issued under

signature of Collector, Gaya (Annexure - 1) and letter no. 132(4)

dated 4.4.2011 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary,

Revenue and Land Reforms Development, Government of Bihar,

Patna (Annexure - 2), it is apparent that the reply to the 2 nd show

cause filed by the petitioner was not at all considered. The

impugned order does not at all disclose the reason as to why the

defence submitted by the petitioner was not trustworthy. Non-

compliance of the same resulted in violation of principal of

natural justice and same is also against the provisions of Rule

18(3) and (4) of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005.

8. This Court also finds merit in the submission of

learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving any notice or Patna High Court CWJC No.11494 of 2013 dt.17-01-2023

opportunity of hearing, the order of withholding the period of

suspension is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court is in agreement with the submission of the

petitioner that the order of punishment (Annexure 1 and 2 to the

writ petition) cannot be legally justified. Similarly, the second

punishment of withholding of salary during suspension period has

been imposed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

10. Considering the same, impugned orders i.e. orders

contained in letter no. 195(Mu) dated 20.4.2011 issued under

signature of Collector, Gaya (Annexure - 1) and letter no. 132(4)

dated 4.4.2011 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary,

Revenue and Land Reforms Development, Government of Bihar,

Patna (Annexure - 2) are set-aside and quashed and the matter is

remitted to the respondent authorities with liberty to proceed

afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the

petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

11. As the case is old one, it is expected that necessary

orders will be passed by the respondents authorities within a

period of six months from the date of receipt / production of copy

of this order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11494 of 2013 dt.17-01-2023

12. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent

mentioned above.

                                                        (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Anay
AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date        18.01.2023
Transmission Date     N/A