Allowed

Sri Niwash Choudhary v. Water Resources Departement

Jharkhand HC3 Sept 2024WPC/661/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition, held that finding a petitioner guilty and suspending him based solely on a preliminary enquiry report without a regular inquiry violates natural justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court quashed the suspension memo and directed the grant of consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Memo No. 508 dated 10.02.2009 quashed; respondents directed to grant all consequential benefits claimed by the petitioner.

Sri Niwash Choudhary Vs Water Resources Departement — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(S) No. 661 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

-------

¶4

Sri Niwash Choudhary, son of late Narsing Choudhary, resident of Village- Bali Gaon, P.O. Rajandih, P.S. Rajpur, District Rohtas, Bihar.

¶5

…... …. Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶10

The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. .…. …. Respondent(s)

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
	Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State	: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr.S.C.-I
For the Resp. No.4	: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶15

14/ Dated 03.09.2024

¶16

Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 508 dated 10.02.2009, issued by respondent No.3 the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and wherein, petitioner was put under suspension, with further stipulation that during the period of his suspension, he will not get any salary apart from the subsistence allowance. Petitioner has further prayed for directing the respondents to release the entire arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of his normal superannuation, alongwith other consequential benefits.

¶17

Petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in Minor Irrigation Division, Giridih and was assigned the work to supervise the construction work of Kodai Canal Bandh at Dumri under Minor Irrigation Division, Giridih, which subsequently collapsed. The petitioner alongwith other related Engineers were put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against them.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was held guilty on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, which was submitted before initiation of departmental proceeding as is apparent from the Enquiry Report, which is Annexure-4 to this writ application.

¶19

Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :

¶20

44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra this Court dealt with the issue and held as under :

¶21

“ ….. a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of chargesheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no consequence.” (emphasis added) 45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no evidence has been adduced in the departmental proceeding but the petitioner was held guilty only on the basis of preliminary enquiry.

¶23

Perused the enquiry report and from perusal of which, it appears that the petitioner has been found guilty on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, submitted by the Flying Squad.

¶24

The preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 20.03.2002, whereas the memorandum of charge was issued vide letter No. 2860 dated 05.09.2002.

¶25

It is apparent that the departmental proceeding was initiated after the preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Flying Squad. It further appears that no evidence was adduced in the departmental proceeding. In the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra) , a preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issuance of chargesheet. As discussed, the preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice is of no consequence.

¶26

In view of the discussions made above, the impugned Memo No. 508 dated 10.02.2009 is hereby, quashed.

¶27

The respondents shall grant all the consequential benefits as claimed by the petitioner in this writ application in accordance with law.

¶28

With this direction, this writ application is allowed. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶30

B.S/-

Sri Niwash Choudhary v. Water Resources Departement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Niwash Choudhary v. Water Resources Departement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Jaya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Secretary (Primary Education) School Education and Literacy Deptt

Dr Minu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Narayan Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bihari Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sohrab Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Primary Education and Literacy Department

Sampad Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary