P. B. Bajanthri, J. – In the present L.P.A., the appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7348 of 2015.

2. The appellant while working as Executive Engineer was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 19 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (For short “the Rules 2005”). On 26.07.2011, in seeking appellant’s explanation, appellant had submitted his explanation on 01.08.2011. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose penalty of Censure and withholding two increments without cumulative effects on 09.05.2013.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty order by the disciplinary authority, the appellant preferred revision/review and it was rejected on 28.05.2015. Thus, the appellant has filed C.W.J.C. No.7348 of 2015 and it was dismissed on 14.05.2019. Hence the present L.P.A.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in not taking note of specific contention raised in reply to the charge dated 01.08.2011 and not apprised to the extent that there is non-application of mind on behalf of both the disciplinary authority and revisional authority while passing orders on 09.05.2013 and 28.05.2015. It is also submitted that if there are any certain disputed issues, in such circumstances, the disciplinary authority should have resorted to holding of inquiry in the light of Rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules 2005. It is submitted that the specific plea of the appellant in not furnishing the demanded documents on behalf of the Special Secretary through the Engineer-in-Chief, the same has not been appreciated. In fact, the appellant has specifically contended that the custodian of those records was on deputation to election duty. Therefore, it was beyond the control of the appellant in providing the demanded documents on behalf of the Special Secretary and Engineer-in-Chief. The same has not been taken note of and appreciated by the disciplinary authority/revisional authority and so also by the learned Single Judge.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State resisted the aforementioned contentions and supported the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7348 of 2015 and submitted that the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 19 of the Rules 2005 and it was only for imposition of minor penalty. In respect of imposition of minor penalty is concerned, disciplinary authority can resort only to the extent of issuing show cause notice along with article of charges and seeking explanation of the concerned Government Servant and, thereafter, proceed to pass order of punishment after due consideration of explanation of such Government Servant. The same has been resorted, therefore, the disciplinary authority has not invoked Rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules 2005. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order of the penalty, revisional order and order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present L.P.A. is liable to be dismissed while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7348 of 2015.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 19 of the Rules 2005, it reads as under: –

“19. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 18, no order imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 14 shall be made except after –

(a) informing the Government Servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;

(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23)