S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Notification No. 501 (s), dated 30th January, 2003, whereby and whereunder, he has been punished in pursuance of departmental proceeding and inflicted with punishment of censure and stoppage of annual increment.
(2.) THE brief case of the petitioner is that he was suspended, vide Notification No. 2902 (S), dated 18th June, 2002 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding followed by initiation of proceeding, vide Resolution dated 10th July, 2002. Two allegations were leveled against the petitioner, namely, (i) he accepted N.S.C. as security money while granting contract in favour of one Shri Ram Nagina Tiwary, Contractor without pledging it; and (ii) though the rate quoted by two tenderers; one local (Shri Ujjawal Kumar Sinha) and an outsider (Shri Ram Nagina Nath Tiwary) were same, it was given to the outsider and not to the local Contractor. The Enquiry Officer held both the charges 'not proved'. Even after the finding of the Enquiry Officer, no final order having been passed by the State and as the petitioner is to superannuate in March, 2003, the petitioner had to move before this Court in WP (S) No. 5187 of 2003, against the order of suspension and the departmental proceeding. This Court vide order dated 13th September, 2002 while did net choose to interfere with the order of suspension and the charge sheet, directed the respondents to conclude the proceeding and pass final order within three months. It was made clear that if no final order is passed, the order of suspension shall stand revoked on completion of three months. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned order of punishment contained in Notification No. 501 (S), dated 30th January, 2003.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the order of punishment has been passed by the respondents State without differing with the finding of Enquiry officer. The petitioner was also not informed that the State is going to differ with the finding nor the ground on which they intended to differ to punish the petitioner. In this connection, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Mishra, reported in and certain other decisions.;