IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2724 of 2011
PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHIV PD.SINGH
R/O VILL.- JEHANABAD, PS- KUDRA, DISTT- BHABHUA
(KAIMUR) PRESENTLY POSTED AS DISTRICT AGRICULTURE
OFFICER, SIAMARHI-------------PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECY. DFPATT. OF
AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. PRINCIPAL SECY. DEPATT. OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA
3. UNDER SECY. DEPATT. OF AGRICULTURE,GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PANTA
4. DEPUTY SECY. DEPATT. OFAGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA
5. ADDL. SECY. DEPATT. OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA
6. JOINT DIRECTOR,AGRICULTURE,TIRAHUT DIVISION,MUZAFFARPUR
7. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI------------RESPONDENTS
-----------
2 4.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner was posted in the district of Sitamarhi as
a District Agriculture Officer. Now he stands transferred to yet
another district. During the period he was posted at Sitamarhi his
salary was ordered to be stopped from July 2010 by the District
Magistrate, Sitamarhi. The only reason for such direction is that
the petitioner tired to mislead or misinform the District Magistrate
on the issue of price of tractor, as purchase of tractor was part of
the scheme of a government, where a decision on the price of a
tractor had significance.
It is evident from the writ itself that a kind of show
cause was issued and he offered his explanation. But nothing more
beyond that was done. If it is so then the Court fails to understand
under what power the District Magistrate had stopped his salary
without any enquiry or decision on the show cause which was not
a measure of punishment.
Stoppage of salary may be one option if omission
-2-
or commission committed by the petitioner is established but there
is procedure laid down for this and any innovation of such kind is
uncalled for in a country which is governed by rule of law.
This writ application is disposed of with a
direction upon the District Magistrate, i.e. respondent no.7 that he
shall ensure payment of salary to petitioner within a period of
three moths from July 2010 till the day the petitioner was posted in
Sitamarhi district. This must be sorted out because if this issue is
not settled the petitioner will also face difficulty at the place of his
new posting in view of the earlier issue not having been
reconciled.
This writ application is allowed with the above
observation/direction specially in the light of the fact that counsel
for the State fails to produce any rule by which such stoppage of
salary can be made.
RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)