DINESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to S.C. 20 for the respondents and also considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of punishment as contained in Annexure 7 issued vide memo no. 2332 dated 7.7.1999 and also the appellate order. By the orders impugns the petitioner having been found guilty for the charges levelled against him in a departmental proceeding, has been punished in the following terms: (i) Censure, (ii) Stoppage of one annual increment (iii) He will not get anything during the suspension period save and except the subsistence allowance already paid. It is contended by Mr. Chittranjan Sinha that the order impugned has been issued without following the procedures of law and without applying the principles of natural justice inasmuch as that neither copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner nor an opportunity was given by way of a separate show cause for punishment no. (iii) as required under the provisions of Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code, it is further submitted by Mr. Sinha that enquiry in this matter was complete and the enquiry report was submitted on 24.5.1994 whereas the order of punishment was issued vide order dated 7.7.1999, almost after five years of the conclusion of the proceeding; that too without service of the enquiry report. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the order impugned is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THIS Court faced with this situation, had directed the state counsel to produce the records of this case pertaining to the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner.