DEO BARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner in the present writ application assails the order dated 6.7.99 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application. The impugned order would record that for certain irregularities in the construction of a bridge and on receipt of an inspection report, an explanation had been called for from the petitioner which was not forthcoming. The petitioner was then visited with two punishments, (a) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and (b) "Censure" with effect from 1988 -89.

(3.) THE counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents would contend that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was minor in nature and therefore there was no need to hold a regular departmental proceeding by issuance of memo of charges etc. The impugned order therefore calls for no interference.