ORDER

The petitioner is a Grade IV employee and was posted as Care Taker at the Circuit House, Bhabhua in the district of Kaimur at the relevant time. The Circuit House aforesaid has four rooms with residential accommodation. On the relevant date, a Minister of the Government had been in occupation of one room since the day before and was to vacate the room at about 11 am on 24.10.2002. For 24.10.2002 and 25.10.2002, all the four rooms were booked for a Committee of the Vidhan Sabha. It appears that the Members of the Committee of the Vidhan Sabha turned up at the Circuit House but could be provided only three rooms as the fourth room had not yet been vacated by the Minister. On petitioner’s request, the Minister vacated the room but for about an hour, the fourth room, on 24.10.2010, was not made available to the Committee. This became an eye sore for the district administration. Petitioner was immediately put under suspension and a departmental proceeding initiated against him for alleged misdemeanor and misbehaviour. An Enquiry Officer being the Executive Magistrate was appointed. Charges were framed. Petitioner filed a show cause and took the stand that he was a Grade IV employee and as the Minister had not promptly vacated the room which was to be allotted to the Committee of Vidhan Sabha, unnecessarily he was being made the sacrificial goat. It appears that the Enquiry Officer then submitted a report to the Collector, Kaimur finding the petitioner to be guilty. The Collector, in view of the enquiry report, issued another notice to the petitioner to show cause as against proposed punishment in view of the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner again filed his detailed show cause. The Collector, having found the show cause to be unsatisfactory, passed the impugned punishment order by which six increments, with cumulative effect, were withheld and further for the period of suspension, petitioner was ordered not to be entitled to any remuneration except subsistence allowance.

2. Petitioner was, thereafter, transferred from that place as well but we are not concerned with the said transfer. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the punishment mainly on three grounds. Firstly, he submits that what was the finding of the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report has never been disclosed to him except the Enquiry Officer had found him guilty. What was the consideration has never been disclosed to the petitioner. When second show cause was issued, petitioner again submitted his reply to show cause. Again, the order of the Collector does not show a conscious consideration of the reply to show cause. There is no reason given for not accepting the explanation, as offered by the petitioner. The order of punishment is, thus, a non-speaking order.

3. The third ground on which the order has been challenged is that considering the facts and circumstances, the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the delinquency. State has filed a counter affidavit. Basic stand of the State is that appellate forum being available, the writ petition should not be entertained. The authorities followed the procedure and after due consideration, the punishment order was passed. As regards the enquiry report, inspite of specific assertion in the writ petition that the same had not been supplied to the petitioner, in the counter affidavit, neither the enquiry report has been appended nor the fact that it was never served on the petitioner or disclosed to the petitioner, has been denied.

4. Thus, from the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the enquiry report was never disclosed to the petitioner either in course of the departmental proceedings or even before this Court. The same has even been withheld from this Court. From the order of the Collector including the order of punishment, it is clearly visible and established that the entire reliance has been placed by the Collector upon the enquiry report for punishing the petitioner