ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Office Order No. 1168/04 issued by Memo No. 2499 (4) dated 10.9.2004 (An-nexure-4) as also for quashing the Office Order No. 865/04 issued by Memo No. 1848, dated 22.7.2004 (Annexure-5) issued by the Superintendent of Police (T) Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner’s pay scale has been reduced to the scale of Rs. 3050/- and a sum of Rs. 1,09,391 allegedly paid in excess has been sought to be recovered.
2. According to the petitioner, he has been proceeded against departmentally by serving charge-sheet containing the articles of changes wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has got his pay enhanced illegally without the required departmental training. That Departmental Proceeding being No. 18/04 is still pending and in the mean while, the order of reduction of his pay as well as recovery of the excess amount has been issued.
3. The grievance of the petitiorer is that even before conclusion of the proceeding the impugned orders have been arbitrarily and illegally passed prejudging the allegation against him contrary to the provision of law and without any basis.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents supporting the impugned orders and contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has submitted his explanation and the same has to be considered by the concerned respondent. It has been further submitted that the departmental enquiry has been initiated by way of disciplinary action and the same is still pending for final disposal. As per the Police Order No. 238-93, the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary and increment of a trained police constable and thus the recovery process has been started. Subsequently, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed whereby it has been stated that the said departmental proceeding No. 18/04 has been disposed of by order dated 11.6.2005 and a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-E. By the said An-nexure-E the petitioner has been held guilty of getting the excess salary and in that view the earlier orders were passed during the pendency of the departmental proceeding i.e. the impugned Annexure-4 and 5 have been approved.
5. In this case an order was passed dated 24.3.2005 whereby it was directed that there shall be no deduction from the petitioner’s salary pursuant to the order as contained in Annexure-4 and by Annexure-E it has been held that since there is an order of this Court, separate order will be passed departmentally for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner after disposal of the instant case.
6. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that since the departmental proceeding was initiated and it was yet to be concluded, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-4 and 5 which have been passed by way of punishment are wholly illegal and arbitrary. There is no such provision in law or in the Bihar Police Manual to pass such interim punishment orders before the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that it is an admitted position that the impugned orders for reduction of pay and recovery of the alleged excess payment have been passed during the pendency of the departmental proceeding which is said to be concluded during the pendency of this writ application. The said order has been brought on record with the supplementary affidavit, as contained in Annexure-E. Learned counsel submitted that the said impugned orders (Annexure-4 and 5) are untenable, unsustainable and the same are liable to be quashed.
7. Dr. M.K. Laik, learned Senior SC-I, on the other hand, submitted that though it is the admitted position that the impugned orders were passed during the pendency of the departmental proceeding but the same are not arbitrary and illegal as the respondents have power to pass such orders even during the pendency of the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel, however, failed to show any such provision either in the Bihar Police Manual or in any other law.
8. It is now well established that any order of punishment or any order which is prejudicial or punitive in nature, cannot be passed without following the due process of law and without giving the delinquent sufficient opportunity of hearing. In the instant case admittedly the charge-sheet was served and the proceeding was in progress and in the mean while the impugned Annexures-4 and 5 have been passed reducing the petitioner’s pay scale and directing recovery of Rs. 1,09,391/-from him. The impugned orders are thus violative of the provisions of law as well as the principles of natural justice and the same are null and void. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures-4 and 5 are thus quashed. This writ application is allowed. This Court has, however, not expressed it opinion regarding the merit of the final order passed in the departmental proceeding as contained in Annexure-E against which the petitioner may take appropriate steps as provided in law.