Non-application of mind, irregularities in procedures, and breach of principles of natural justice vitiated the impugned punishment, leading to a proportionate modification of the punishment.

Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Orders dated, 27th February, 2006 and 25th January, 2007. The Orders visit him with the punishment of forfeiture of his entire pension.

3. The Petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings. An enquiry report dated, 31st October, 2001 came to be submitted. Some of the charges were proved, others partially proved and some were not proved. A second Show Cause Notice and reply thereto led to an Order of dismissal from service on 26th July, 2002. On a challenge in CWJC No. 13816 of 2002 this Court on 14th October, 2003 held the punishment to be unsustainable in view of proper procedure having not been followed in a case of difference of opinion when the Petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to represent. Liberty was given to the Respondents to proceed afresh in the matter. The Petitioner superannuated on 29th February, 2004. The proceedings were then converted into one under Section 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules when a fresh second Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 28th September, 2005 on proved charges. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 17th October, 1995 when the impugned Orders came to be passed which has been concurred by the Bihar Public Service Commission.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Orders of punishment suffer from the vice of non application of mind to the reply to the second Show Cause Notice. There is no discussion, even brief, to reflect consideration of the cause shown. The impugned Orders are non speaking and fit to be set aside. Secondly, there has been grave irregularities in procedures during the departmental enquiry in as much as charge No. 5 is concerned which was subsequently split into sub-charges 9 to 15. Despite a request for the vouchers on which the allegations of financial irregularities against the Petitioner was based they were neither produced in the enquiry, nor copies given to the Petitioner, much less opportunity to examine the same. There was no finding of any misconduct or negligence causing pecuniary loss to the Government. That the proved charges were not a grave misconduct to justify the punishment.

5. Learned Counsel for the State supported the enquiry report and the impugned Orders of punishment as justified to assert that the departmental proceedings were fair and reasonable. The Petitioner had proper opportunity to present his case and that necessary documents had been made available to the Petitioner as mentioned in the impugned Order dated, 25th January, 2007.

6. The scope for the writ Court to interfere with the findings in a departmental proceeding is extremely narrow and stands well settled. The Court will not sit as an Appellate Authority to reassess the findings on basis of evidence adduced during enquiry. Neither will the Court speculate what the enquiry Officer meant. It is only in a case of breach of principles of natural justice causing prejudice, perversity of findings, lack of opportunity to defend; non supply of vital documents, collection of evidence behind the back of the delinquent etc. are some of the examples when the writ Court may interfere with the finding in a departmental enquiry. To that extent this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the finding of guilt in so far as Charge No. 1, Charge No. 3, Charge No. 4, Charge No. 6, Charge No. 7 are either proved or partially proved. The Petitioner stands exonerated of charge No. 2 and charge No. 8.

7. Relevant for determination now is Charge No. 5. The allegation was of wrongful purchase of medicines from MSD Calcutta which was split up into sub-charges 9 to 15. The allegations primarily were of wrongful placement of indent and receipt of medicines, payment for the same from other than the allotted head and purchase despite ban Orders of the Government not to do so. Violation of Financial Rules 479 all of which imposed financial loss to the Gover