Brajendra Kumar Sinha vs State of Bihar and Others

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Karn learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar and its official respondents. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Touring Veterinary Officer (Mobile), Animal Husbandry, Central Range, in the Veterinary Hospital, Bankipur, Patna. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for being a party to issuing orders of transfer of some fake Class IV employees from one place to another. In this manner, as per the charge-sheet the petitioner along with others attempted to absorb fake employees as regular employees through the instrument of transfer. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. As regards the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held that normally Class IV employees were not transferred and if at all there was any need for transfer of such employees, there had to be a recommendation by the Controlling Officer. In the present case, however, the transfer applications of the fake employees were entertained directly and the petitioner failed to draw the attention of the members of the Establishment Committee in entertaining such application of transfer. The employees who were transferred were not appointees under the Government at all.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what has been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, cannot be said to be a misconduct for the purpose of imposition of punishment and the order of punishment is, therefore, bad in law.

By the impugned order dated 30.4.2003, the only punishment which has been imposed against the petitioner is stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The impugned order however, stipulates that the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary for the period during which he remained under suspension over and above what was paid to him as subsistence allowance.

In view of the nature of allegation and the report of the Enquiry Officer, I do not find it proper to interfere with the impugned order of imposition of punishment and stoppage of increment of one year. The writ application is dismissed on this count alone.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that finally the disciplinary authority decided to impose punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, the order of suspension cannot be justified and therefore full salary for the period during which he remained under suspension should not be denied. His further contention is that similarly situated persons, namely, Bindeshwari Prasad, has been paid salary for the period during which he remained under suspension.

In such circumstances, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, claiming parity of benefit with Bindeshwari Prasad. If, the Secretary is satisfied that the case of the petitioner is not different from that of Bindeshwari Prasad, the case of the petitioner should favourably be considered with regard to payment of full salary for the period during which he remained under suspension. With this observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.