The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a dismissal from service in an ex parte departmental proceeding. Upholding the inquiry report, the Court held that findings of non-participation despite notices must be accepted absent indisputable material and the dismissal order did not warrant interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(S) No. 3043 of 2013
Nagendra Mishra, son of late Ram Vilash Mishra, r/o village Darhar, PO Lahariasarai, PS Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga ......Petitioner
Versus
& PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi
--------------(Through V.C.)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Dev, AC to SC(L&C)-III ---------------
Order No.13/ Dated: 8th April 2022
The petitioner suffered punishment of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority on 13th November 2002 which order has been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The challenge made by the petitioner to the aforesaid orders is founded on the ground that the inquiry was conducted behind his back and no opportunity was afforded to him to put forth his defence before the inquiring officer.
2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders passed by the departmental authority no where records the satisfaction as required in law that the absence from duty was willful and intentional.
3. To fortify his submissions, Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to the judgment in “Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India” (2012) 3 SCC 178 .
2 W.P.(S) No. 3043 of 2013
4. In the departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner by serving upon him a charge memo dated 31st July 2001 he did not participate. The departmental inquiry against the petitioner continued in his absence as in spite of several notices issued to him he did not appear before the inquiring officer as is recorded in the inquiry report dated 20th August 2002. A copy of a reply submitted by the petitioner has been produced vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A glance at which would indicate that the same was undated, without a reference to memo number and the date by which second show cause-notice was issued to him.
5. From the materials brought on record it appears that the disciplinary authority on consideration of the materials on record passed an order of dismissal from service which as noticed above has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 1st July 2004 and the revisional authority by an order dated 14th November 2012.
6. It is well settled in law that the powers of the writ Court of judicial review of the findings recorded in a properly constituted departmental inquiry are very limited. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not akin to the appellate powers and exercise of such powers is confined only to the extent of examining the decision making process. In “State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao” (1975) 2 SCC 557 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ Court is not constituted as a Court of appeal.
7. The findings recorded by the inquiring officer that the delinquent government employee did not participate in the departmental inquiry in spite of several show cause-notices issued to him must be accepted by the Court, in absence of any indisputable material produced by the petitioner. With reference to Rule 843 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that in all cases of unauthorized absence from duty a report from the concerned Superintendent of Police of the place where the delinquent government employee permanently resides was required to ascertain the factual situation. There may be a rule in place in this regard, but, in the opinion of the Court, the
3 W.P.(S) No. 3043 of 2013
delinquent government employee was under a duty to intimate the department his whereabouts and the reason for his absence from duty. It is not borne from the records of this case that the petitioner made any such effort and provided information to the department as to his temporary residence during the period of his absence from duty.
8. The stand taken by the petitioner that his reply in response to second show cause-notice was not considered by the disciplinary authority and the order of dismissal from service has been passed in a mechanical manner, in the aforesaid facts of the present case, cannot be accepted. The requirement in law is that any order passed against a government employee should contain brief facts of the case and conclusions of the authority who has passed the order. This is not a requirement in law that an authority passing the order must give elaborate reasons to support his decision. A glance at the order dated 13th November 2002 would reveal that the disciplinary authority has taken note of the charge against the petitioner and the finding recorded by the inquiring officer that he did not participate in the departmental proceeding.
9. In my opinion, the order dated 13th November 2002 is not a cryptic order which can be said to be result of non-application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. It is also well settled in law that in ex parte departmental proceedings it is lawful for the departmental authority to pass appropriate orders (refer, “ Major U.R. Bhatt v. Union of India” AIR 1962 SC 1344 ) and, therefore, on that count also I am of the opinion that the order of dismissal dated 13th November 2002 passed by the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities does not warrant interference by this Court and, accordingly, W.P.(S) No. 3043 of 2013 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
RKM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ Court can quash a dismissal order from service in an ex parte departmental proceeding where the employee did not participate despite notices.
Whether the findings of the inquiring officer that the delinquent government employee did not participate in the inquiry must be accepted in the absence of any indisputable material produced by the pe
Whether the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority warrants interference by this Court despite the petitioner's absence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of IndiaReferred¶18
Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178 · Who else cites this
State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata RaoRelied on¶22
State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
Major U.R. Bhatt v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶27
Major U.R. Bhatt v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1344 · Who else cites this
Nagendra Mishra
State of Jharkhand
Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand
Director General of Police, Rail, Jharkhand
Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur
Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
