@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.@mdashHeard the parties.
2. Petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to treat the period of his suspension i.e. from April 1986 to November 1990 on duty and to pay
full salary are allowance for the said period.
3. It appears that in the year 1986 while petitioner was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Patherdih Road-Police Station, a departmental proceeding
was initiated against him and punishment by way of two Black Marks forfeiting the pay and allowance was passed. The said order was confirmed
by D.I.G. of Police, Patna in the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 1795
of 1991 (R). A Division Bench of the Patna High Court quashed the order of punishment and directed the respondents to give a reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness already examined by the enquiring officer behind his back and to reconduct the
departmental proceeding. Respondents instead of reconducting the proceeding called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of
black marks be not enhanced to the punishment of dismissal from the service. Petitioner then moved this Court by filing MJC No. 318 of 1992
(R). A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said contempt case, on 6.10.93 by passing the following order :
The peculiar manner in Which Government cases are conducted would appear in this case. There is an order passed on 5.12.91 by a Division
Bench of this Court. The writ application was allowed and the order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Dhanbad
and the order passed by the D.I.G. Railways on appeal were quashed and the Enquiry Officer was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to
the petitioner to cross examine the live witnesses and conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible.
It is pointed out that such order was passed on the basis of averments made by G.P.II appearing on behalf of the respondents including the
contemnor herein that he has gone through the record thoroughly and has found that no notice or letter was served on the petitioner before the
enquiring officer examined five of the witnesses namely, D.P. Singh, Bhola Nath Ojha, C. Moitra and A.K. Haldear.
In spite of that the contemnors called upon the petitioner to show cause against dismissal from service in the departmental proceeding by enhancing
punishment already quashed. This was done by the letter dated 4.12.92 issued by the S.P. Rly Police.
In the show cause filed, Rakesh Prasad Singh, S.P. Railway, Dhanbad has stated that he has no knowledge of the order passed by this Court and
it was disposed of on 5.12.91. It is stated that opposite party No. 1 had no knowledge of the order passed by this Court. It is stated that only
when the contempt notice was issued then it came to their knowledge that such an order has been passed.
We feel that this is a very sad state of affairs. The order was passed not ex parte but in presence of the lawyer for the respondents and on the basis
of the statement made by the learned lawyer appearing for the respondents nothing has been stated whether the learned lawyer of the respondents
communicated this order or not and if not, why.
Under such circumstances, we shall not dispose of this application except for setting aside the order passed by the S.P. Rly, Dhanbad.
Accordingly, the order dated 4.9.92 contained, in annexure-3-to the show cause, is hereby quashed.
We direct that a enquiry be made by the Chief Secretary to the following effect :
(a) Whether any notice of the order, violation of which is complained of, was received by the S.P. Rly, Dhanbad or not.
(b) Whether such order was communicated by G.P.II in whose presence this order was passed and
(c) Upon submission of G.P.II, why it was not communicated by his office or at the instance of G.P.II.
Let the report be submitted one week after the vacation. Let a copy of this order along with copies of relevant papers be sent to the Chief
Secretary.
Let it be recorded that this order has been passed in presence of learned G.P.II.
3. After the aforesaid order was passed in the contempt case neither the departmental proceeding was reconducted nor any final order of
punishment has been passed till date. However, petitioner joined his service in November, 1990 and since then he has been working. In the
counter affidavit, it is stated that file of the proceeding was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro in 1993 and it was received by the
Superintendent of Police but the file is still traceless. However, respondents called the petitioner vide memo-dated 24.7.93 to furnish documents
but he did not turn up. For better appreciation paragraph 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit is reproduced herein below :
Para 12 : That it is further stated and submitted that the file of the proceeding was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, vide deponent''s
office memo No. 81(2)/RO, dated 15.2.1993, which is being enclosed as Annexure-D to this counter affidavit and vide Superintendent of Police,
Bokaro, memo No. 812/RO, dated 30.3.2003 it was received in his office but is traceless at present.
Para 13 : That it is further stated and submitted that the respondent called for the petitioner through the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, along
with the related papers for disposal of his claim regarding suspension period vide letter memo No. 588 Sa.Sa., dated 24.7.2003 but the petitioner
refused to come and since the concerned file is missing from the office of the Superintendent of the Police, Bokaro, the respondent is not in a
position to take appropriate decision.
4. It is, therefore, clear that how carelessly and negligently respondents have proceeded with the matter. Admittedly, neither proceeding was
reconducted nor any notice was given to the petitioner excepting the notice-dated 24.7.2003. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that
petitioner must get his salary for the period that he was put under suspension from April, 1986 to November, 1990.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the salary minus the subsistence
allowance, if paid, to the petitioner for the period April 1986 to November 1990.