Abul Wafa vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The order, as contained in annexure 5 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished in a departmental proceeding and two of his increments have been withheld with cumulative effect and directions have been issued to make such entry in his service book.

The petitioner was proceeded against departrnentally for the charge that though he was transferred by notification dated 30th June, 1998, he did not join the transferred post for about a year when he was required to join the post within 30 days from the date of relieving.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was transferred by notification dated 30th June, 1998, he was not relieved by the superior authorities and, therefore, he could not join the transferred post in time. It is further submitted that the inquiry officer came to a conclusion that since the petitioner was not relieved by the authority, he could not join the post. However, the petitioner was relieved on 4.9.1999. The inquiry officer, therefore, suggested that the Superintendent of Education, Giridih, and Area Education Officer were also responsible and, as such, the inquiry officer suggested to take a lenient view in the matter and to relieve the petitioner from suspension after stern warning. It is also submitted that punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide order, as contained in annexure 5, appears to be disproportionate to the guilt and finding of the inquiry officer.

It is not the case of the respondents that pursuant to the order of transfer dated 30th June, 1998, the petitioner was relieved immediately and, thus, he defaulted in not joining the transferred post in time.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide order, as contained in annexure 5, is held to be disproportionate to the guilt and findings of the inquiry officer. The matter, therefore, requires fresh consideration by the authorities to take suitable action in the matter according to the findings of the inquiry officer. In the result, this application is allowed, order impugned, as contained in annexure 5, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to reconsider the same afresh for passing necessary order in accordance with law keeping in view the findings of the inquiry officer.