PATNA, India, Oct. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 25:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner in the instant application has prayed for quashing the order contained in memo no.396 dated 14.3.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Siwan whereby the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of censure, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and nongrant of benefit under the ACP scheme. It was further ordered that the punishments be entered in the service book of the petitioner and the work of Nazir/Accountant should not be taken from the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while the petitioner was posted as a Clerk in the office of the Block Development Officer, Block Daraundha, District Siwan, he was placed under suspension on 8.11.2010 and chargesheet starting a departmental proceeding was served on him on 27.12.2010. The petitioner filed his reply along with all relevant documents on 12.1.2011. The suspension of the petitioner was subsequently revoked by order dated 19.1.2011.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that after having filed the reply to the memo of charges mentioned in the chargesheet, the petitioner was not served with any show cause nor with a copy of the enquiry report. The respondents straightway came out with an order of punishment dated 14.3.2013, as stated above.

5. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that soon after the order of punishment, on 18.3.2013, the petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act requesting therein that he be supplied with the entire records of the departmental proceeding as also a copy of the entire report, however, the same has not been made available to the petitioner till date. The order of punishment having been passed without supplying a copy of the enquiry report, the order of punishment passed is not sustainable and fit to be set aside. The respondents be directed to pay the entire salary for the period that the petitioner was kept under suspension.

6. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents in reference to the counter affidavit filed that the impugned order of punishment is legal, proper and has no infirmity. A perusal of prapatra 'ka' would show that the same contains seven charges of misconduct to which the reply furnished by the petitioner was found to be superficial. The petitioner is not entitled for any other amount besides the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. There is no illegality in the order of punishment, no merit in the instant application and the same be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTQ3MTYjMjAxMyMxI04=---ak1--RrbtOW3Wig=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.