Umesh Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.403 of 2016 ===========================================================

1. Umesh Prasad Yadav Son of Late Lattu Prasad Yadav, resident of villageRaisar, P.O.- Basudeopur, P.S. Kotwali, District Munger at present posted at Commissioner Office Munger as an Assistant .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The Chairman cum Member, Board of Revenue Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna

3. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhu Nath Sharma, A.C. to A.G. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-10-2017 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Nath Sharma, A.C. to A.G. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.1580 dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Munger Division whereby he has been visited with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with non cumulative effect under the provisions of Rule 14(v) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as amended from time to time. The order has been affirmed in appeal when the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order passed on 19.06.2015 impugned at Annexure-8.

Patna High Court CWJC No.403 of 2016 dt.17-10-2017 2/2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.

The matter does not require too much examination as the situation stands explained from the show cause notice itself whereunder the petitioner an Assistant in the office of the Commissioner, Munger Division has been noticed on being found wanting in his discharge in placing 12 files relating to acquisition proceeding in obedience of the orders of the Commissioner and which delayed the disposal thereof. It is on account of the casual approach of the petitioner in not ensuring compliance of the order of the Commissioner dated 14.09.2012 that has invited the proceeding vide show cause at Annexure-4 and since the answer of the petitioner at Annexure-5 practically confirms the allegation that it has resulted in a punishment order which is minor in nature and the reasons accompanying the same does not persuade this Court to interfere therewith.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.10.2017 Transmission Date NA