The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary proceedings to adhere to principles of natural justice, including the necessity of a speaking order and consideration of the seriousness of charges.

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

2. Initially when this writ petition was filed on 29.4.2003, a prayer was made to quash the order of suspension dated 4.8.1999 issued by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna subsequently by I.A. No. 3132 of 2003 filed on 28.7.2003, the petitioner has also sought leave to assail the order of punishment dated 30.5.2003 issued under the penal signature of Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been dismissed from service as also subjected to recovery of Rs. 95,266/- and Rs. 90,500/- for the loss caused to the State exchequer by way of cost of bitumen and charges for road roller respectively.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment cannot be sustained inasmuch as the enquiry officer had not found any of the charges framed against the petitioner to have been proved. He also submits that the disciplinary authority could not have inflicted such punishment against the petitioner without differing with the report of enquiry officer. Counsel also submits that the order of dismissal allegedly passed on 30th May, 2003 did not come into force till the date of retirement of the petitioner as the same was never served on him in the active period of his service till 31.5.2003 when he had retired from the service while continuing under the orders of suspension dated 4.8.1999. Counsel summed up his submission by taking a plea that the order of dismissal from service dated 30.5.2003 was actually served on him sometime in June 2003 and therefore now even if there be any justification to continue with such enquiry in terms of Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, the same should not be permitted by this Court keeping in view that the petitioner is a retired man who stands deprived of his salary, emolument and pensionary benefits for the period of 10 years.

4. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would first submit that after the departmental proceeding was initiated by a memo of charge dated 17.8.1999, the enquiry officer had submitted his report on 9.1.2001 whereafter the petitioner was given a show-cause notice on 16.6.2001 and when the petitioner had submitted his reply on 7.5.2002 seeking an opportunity of personal hearing, that too was extended to him by fixing the date of hearing on 24.2.2003. The petitioner however had consumed a period of two months in filing of his additional reply and had filed the same on 21.4.2003. It was thus sought to be projected by him that the petitioner being aware of the fact that he was reaching nearer to the date of his retirement had been deliberately avoiding the passing of the final order and in the aforesaid circumstances, the order of punishment was passed on 30.5.2003 and also communicated on the same day to the petitioner to the last place of posting being the headquarters fixed in the period of suspension as well as on his permanent address.

5. This Court would first take up the issue of the order of punishment of dismissal of service becoming ineffective on account of its being not served on the petitioner before the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.5.2003. In this regard from a bare perusal of the order dated 30.5.2003 as contained in Annexure-7 to the interlocutory application it is found that Engineer-in-Chief had not only passed such order of punishment but had also issued the same by his Memo No. 1831(E) dated 30.5.2003 to all concerned including the petitioner at his last known official address, the headquarter during the period of his suspension in the office of Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Road Construction Department, Patna as also his permanent address in Mohalla-Kashi Takia, P.O.-Biharsharif, District-Nalanda. In that view of the matter, this Court would hold that the order of punishment was duly communicated to the petitioner on 30.5.2003 at his last known official address