The necessity for proper procedure and evidence in disciplinary actions is emphasized, validating the importance of fair trial principles.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

7 18-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was at the relevant time posted as an Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sinkandra in Jamui was proceeded against under departmental proceeding which ended in an order of punishment dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure-14) being passed on the orders of the Governor issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and further the petitioner would not be entitled for any other amount for the period of suspension, except for the subsistence allowance.

3. Subsequently order dated 8.6.2010 (Annexure-17)

was passed by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department stating that as the order of punishment dated

13.2.2009 cannot be imposed as the petitioner was due to retire, the proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and the petitioner was served with the chargesheet in form ‘ka’.

4. The respondents thereafter came out with another order of punishment in a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules on 12.10.2011 imposing the punishment of deduction of 3% pension for all times to come and that the petitioner would not be entitled for any other amount for the suspension period besides the subsistence allowance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in reference to the statements made in paragraph nos. 23 and 24 of the writ application that the petitioner was at no point of time served with the copy of the inquiry report nor with the second show cause prior to passing the order of major punishment against him. It is further submitted that the earlier departmental proceeding having ended in an order of punishment dated 13.2.2009 being passed, the respondents could not have reopened/restarted the proceedings under Rule 43(b).

6. It is further submitted that even from the inquiry report, it would be evident that no witness was examined on behalf of the management in support of the charges levelled and as such, no document relied upon by the Inquiry Officer was proved or marked exhibit. It is thus a case of no evidence.

7. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgments in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra ; (1998) 7 SCC 84 , Mohammad Daud vs. State of Bihar and Ors. ; 2017 (3) PLJR 930 , Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Mozaffar Hassan ; 2017 (3) PLJR 744

8. It is also submitted that once the order of punishment are held to be unsustainable, the respondents should be directed to pay the entire arrear amount for the period that the petitioner was kept under suspension.

9. It is thus submitted that in view of the aforesaid submissions, not only the order of punishment dated 12.10.2011 under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules but even the order of punishment dated 13.2.2009 are both non-sustainable and fit to be set aside.

10. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, though a submission is made that counter affidavit was filed in the year 2013. The same is neither on record nor reflected on the website of the Patna High Court.

11. The matter being of the year 2013 and a copy of the counter affidavit being available with the respondents, let the counter affidavit be filed by 6.1.2026.

12. It may be observed here that even if learned counsel for the petitioner is not available on the next date for reasons of medical exigencies, the writ application may be disposed of/decided