Bengali Prasad Sinha vs State of Bihar and Others

S.N. Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State Respondents. In this writ application, the Petitioner has challenged the order, dated 1.12.1994 by which a major punishment by way of withholding five annual increments of the Petitioners with commulative effect has been inflicted on him, besides an order for deduction of Rs. 1,500/- per month till recovery of Rs. 15,000/- including an adverse entry in his service record. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is a major punishment in terms of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and, as such, the impugned order could not have been passed without initiating a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Awadh Kishore Tiwari v. Damodar Valley Corporation, Calcutta and Anr. (A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 82) wherein it has been held that such major punishment cannot be inflicted without holding the departmental proceeding. It is stated that a counter affidavit has been filed on 8.9.95, but the same is not placed on the record. However, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, has produced a copy of the same wherefrom it appears that the statement to the effect that the impugned order has been passed without initiating a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner, has not been controverted nor the same is being denied in course of his argument. Withholding of increments with commulative effect has been held to be the major punishment. In this view of the matter, the order, dated 1.12.94, as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application, is hereby quashed. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed.