ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 26-02-2024 Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, learned A.C. to GP-7 appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Memo No. 3929 dated 09.04.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 by which the respondent no.2 has ordered that the petitioner be not payable anything except subsistence allowance. However, the aforesaid period has been counted for the purpose of pension and other works.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant in Kendriya Nirupan Sangathan, Upbhag, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna in the month of October, 2007. On 23.07.2010, the respondent no. 5 framed a charge against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner is taking official work regularly of official file and section from outside person, namely, Rajesh Kumar contrary to Government Employee Character Rules, 1976, provides under Rule-III and after the framing of the charge against the petitioner, the petitioner was put under suspension by the respondent no.4 and thereafter departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was asked from the petitioner and the petitioner has filed his reply to show cause in the present matter on 10.08.2010 showing his innocency and the enquiry report was submitted on 15.09.2010 establishing the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner intentionally taken departmental work from outsider on peon file. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked with two punishments thereafter the petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent no. 1 against the order dated 28.12.2010 but the respondent no. 2 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the two punishments which was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.05.2011. When the petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. 11407 of 2011 and which was disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2012 with the following observation of the writ petition;

That the order of punishment dated 18.11.2010 as affirmed in appeal on 30.05.2011 shall be no impediment at all in re-consideration of the quantum of punishment, if the petitioner represents on issues of Article-14 of the Constitution with regard to that meted out to Shri Bidya Bhushan Singh and Pramod Kumar in like circumstances.

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction/observation of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner had filed a representation on 24.01.2012 and in compliance of the order dated 16.01.2012, the department considered the same and the same was disposed of vide order dated 09.04.2012 awarding the punishment of stoppage of two increments with non- cumulative effect and the punishment of censor awarded vide Order No. 338 dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure-4) was withdrawn.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that only the petitioner was not taking the official work from alleged Rajesh Kumar, rather many others employees were taking official work from the Rajesh Kumar which is evident from an application filed by the Rajesh Kumar before the Secretary of the department on 10.06.2010 and the officials had adopted biased attitude with the petitioner in framing the charge and putting under suspension and imposing two punishments against the petitioner and same is not sustainable in the eyes of law because no action against another employee, namely, Pramod Kumar and Vidya Bhushan Singh has been taken by the department but the petitioner has been penalised using colourable exercise of power and the department in case of similar situated persons, namely, Vidya Bhushan Singh and Pramod Kumar the authority has taken decision to stop two increments with non-cumulative effect but in case of the petitioner the department had imposed two punishments (1)

censor (2) stop two increments with non-cumulative effect.

5. Learned couns