- (1.) HEARD the parties
(2.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 231 dated 18.3.1997 (Annexure -5), issued under the signature of respondent no. 3, by which certain punishments have been awarded. Petitioner was charged for not attending the monthly meetings of 20 -point programme in Rohtas Zila between 18.1.1996 to 18.6.1996. He was suspended on 6.7.1996 and a departmental proceeding was initiated. The enquiry officer found that there was justification for not attending the meetings held on 18.1.1996, 20.2.1996 and 18.6.1996. The Enquiry Officer found that the charge of negligence was proved for not attending the meeting held on 18.3.1996. Accordingly, by impugned order (annexure -5), the following punishments were awarded -(a) the period of suspension (6.7.1996 to 8.3.1997) was not to be treated on duty and for this period nothing will be paid except the subsistence allowance. However, this period was to be considered for pension etc., (b) for recording a warning in the ACR of 1996 -97, (c) after revocation of suspension, he will be posted at non -works.
(3.) MR . Samir Saurav, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised short submission relying on a judgment Shri Mahavir Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1988 PLJR 82, in -which it was held that the employee ought to have been given an opportunity to show cause why clauses (3) and (5) of Rule 97 of Bihar Service Code should not be applied in his case.;