HORIL SAHNI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the State. Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 5107 of 2007 for amending the prayer as during the pendency of the writ application an order has been passed whereby the review filed by the petitioner has been rejected by order, dated 2.2.2007, contained in Memo No. 622, prayer is for quashing this order which has been annexed as Annexure -13. The interlocutory application is allowed. This prayer will form part of the writ application.

(3.) PRESENT application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order, contained in Memo No. 2769, dated 13.7.2005, as well as the order contained in Memo No. 622, dated 2.2,2007, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna in a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner has been awarded a punishment of dismissal from service as well as non -payment of salary for the period of suspension except subsistance allowance. The impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner on four grounds. The first ground is that the final order in the departmental proceeding should have been passed by the disciplinary authority, i.e., the *Engineer -in -Chief, but it has been passed by the *Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, who is the appellate authority, due to which the petitioner 'svaluable right to appeal against the order of punishment has been snatched away. This has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit.