IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2699 of 2010
1. NARESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, JUNIOR ENGINEER, ZILA
PARISHAD, MADHUBANI S/O LATE JAGDISH PARIHAR R/O STDIUM ROAD,
CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI
3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD, MADHUBANI
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD, MADHUBANI
5. THE DISTRICT ENGINEER ZILA PARISHAD, MADHUBANI
6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUPPLY DIVISION) JHANJHARPUR SUB
DIVISION, DISTT.- MADHUBANI
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R.E.O. ( W ) DIVISION- JHANJHARPUR,
DISTT.- MADHUBANI
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Zila Parishad: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, Adv.
-----------
4/ 26/10/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the Jila Parishad, Madhubani.
The petitioner while working as a Junior
Engineer was subjected to a departmental proceeding.
The enquiry officer recommended warning. The
disciplinary authority on 17.8.2009 differing with the
same imposed major punishment of stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect and entry in the
service book.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made a
short submission that warning is not a punishment and
therefore there was virtually an exoneration by the
enquiry officer. If the disciplinary authority proposed to
-2-
differ with the same he was required to follow the
procedure of a second show cause notice indicating the
reasons why on the same materials collected during
enquiry he proposed to arrive at a different conclusion
along with tentative reasons for the same to enable the
petitioner to meet it. Failure to follow this procedure
vitiates the punishment.
Learned counsel for the Jila Parishad has
placed the original records of the proceedings before the
Court as directed earlier. From the original records it is
manifest that the disciplinary authority proceeded to
impose the punishment differing with the enquiry report
without issuance of a second show cause notice.
The order of punishment dated 17.8.2009 is
accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the
disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of
submission of the enquiry report as discussed above.
Let the departmental proceedings be then
concluded in accordance with law within a maximum
period of four months from the date of
receipt/presentation of a copy of this order.
The application is allowed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)