Statutory timelines in disciplinary procedures must be strictly adhered to, as violations render actions null and void.

JUDGMENT :

DR. ANSHUMAN, J.

Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s :-

“(i) For quashing the Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 1653 dated 29.06.2021 issued by Respondent Deputy Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Bihar invoking Rule-28 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules , 2005 on the ground of being in breach of Rule -28 and thus a nullity in the eyes of law.

(ii) For quashing the Notification No. 1657 dated 30.06.2021 awarding punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time of scale of pay for a period of 03 years on the ground that once the invocation of proceeding under Rule 28 C.C. Rule 2005 being illegal, without jurisdictiona nd a nullity in the eyes of law, all consequential orders including the punishment is also illegal based on the Principles of Sublato fundamento as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Davindar Pal Singh reported in 2011(14) SCC 770 (Para-107) holding that a void act cannot be validated by a subsequent steps.

(ii) For a direction to the Respondent Authority to restore the status of the petitioner in the correct time scale of pay along with consequential monetary benefits as punishment awarded by the Respondent Authority vide order contained in Notification No. 1657 dated 30.06.2021 is itself without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law.

(iii) For a direction to pay full salary for the entire period of suspension after adjusting the subsistence allowance and allowing the Revision of subsistence allowance as per law as held by Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna in the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1998 PLJR 82 holding mandatory requirement of separate Notice independent reasoned order for denying salary for the suspension period.

(iv) For a declaration that the proceeding under Rule 28 CCA Rules can be initiated only within 06 months from the date of order of earlier punishment hence, the initiation of proceeding including the consequential order are without jurisdiction.

(v) For further declaration that the impugned order under Notification No. 1657 dated 30.06.2021 does not discuss the reasons for revising the earlier punishment under Notification 2684 dated 16.10.2020 which had already been implemented as the Petitioner suffered denial of promotion for three years on account of punishment of censure as per CCA Rules and he also suffered the illegal denial of full salary for the period of suspension.

(vi) For further declaration that the Show Cause Notice under Letter No. 1653 dated 29.06.2021 as issued was not only beyond 06 months statutory time line but also without any reference of penalty proposed as per first proviso to Rule 26 CCA Rules 2005.

(vii) For further declaration that a void order cannot be validated on account of limitation on that a void order has no legal existence and the same is always open to be challenge at any stage.

(viii) For further declaration that once the punishment under Notification 2684 dated 16.10.2020 is already implemented, imposition of further punishment of reduction to the lower stage under Notification 1657 dated 30.06.2021 is in fact second punishment / double jeopardy being in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(ix) For a direction to the revisional /appellate authority to dispose of the appeal whose long pendency is in breach State Litigation Policy apart from causing prejudice to the Petitioner for having suffered reduction to a lower rank in a proceeding which is without jurisdiction and without sanction of la