The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary authorities to adhere to the prescribed procedures under the applicable rules while imposing penalties on government servants.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“1. That, this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the departmental letter issued vide its No. 413 dated 29.05.2008 under the signature of respondent no. 5 and also the part of the office order issued vide its Memo No. 753 dated 20.06.2008 under the signature of respondent no. 4 so far it relates to the petitioner under which stating therein inter alia that the petitioner was awarded two punishment one to entry the censure for the year 2006-07 and nothing will be paid during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance and further for quashing of the letter issued vide its No. 1030 dated 22.12.2008 under the signature of respondent no. 5 under which the Appeal petition of the petitioner was rejected and further for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the respondents to make the full payment of the salary to the petitioner, period under which he remained under suspension, after deducting the subsistence allowance amount as paid to the petitioner for the said period and further for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction directing the respondents to make all the payment as claimed aforesaid with interest and also to make payment all the retiral dues after calculating the financial benefits on the basis of the payment of full salary during the period of suspension of the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.”

3. The petitioner while working as a Head Assistant, he had alleged to have committed certain misdeeds for which he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in framing article of charges on 09.04.2007. He had denied the alleged charge while submitting his explanation to the charge-memo. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner and proceeded to hold enquiry. Enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority without resorting to Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (For short Rules, 2005) proceeded to impose the penalty of censure for the year 2006 -2007 and further suspension period has been treated as suspension only. In other words, petitioner is not entitled to beyond subsistence allowance. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 29.05.2008 read with 20th June, 2008, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and it was rejected on 22.12.2008. However, a communication is stated to have been made to the petitioner on 19.07.2009 (Annexure-10) that the intervening period of suspension would be counted for the purpose of pension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there is non-compliance to the provisions of Rule 17 read with Rule 18 of Rules, 2005.

5. One of the contentions is that copy of the inquiring officer’s report was not made available along with the second show cause notice before imposition of penalty. Therefore, impugned orders of the disciplinary/ appellate authority are liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the disciplinary authority need not to furnish copy of the inquiring officer’s report before imposing penalty for the reasons that disciplinary authority had imposed minor penalty of censure and treating the intervening period of suspension as suspension only. It is also submitted that intervening period of suspension has been counted for the purpose of extending pension. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the disciplinary/appellate authority orders which is subject-matter of the present petition.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

8. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 02.04.2007 and it was revoked on 20th June, 2008. Charge-memo was issued on 09.04.2007