Dismissed

Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishan Deo v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Aug 2012L.P.A/673/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by a Revenue Clerk challenging the punishment order passed after disciplinary proceedings for illegal mutation entries. The court rejected fresh contentions regarding the charge sheet's validity, the sufficiency of enquiry due to admission, and the authority passing the order, finding no merit in the challenge to the Collector's decision.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed in limine, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishan Deo Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Corruption | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.673 of 2011 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16489 of 2004

¶3

====================================================== Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishandeo Singh S/O Late Ashani Singh, resident of village & P.O.- Gangpur Siwan, Distt.- Siwan, at present working as Revenue Kramchari, Anchal Office Andar, Distt.- Siwan.

¶4

.... .... writ petitioner/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The Commissioner- Cum- Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶8

The District Magistrate Siwan, Distt.- Siwan

¶9

The Additional District Magistrate, Siwan, Distt.- Siwan

¶10

The Deputy Collector (Establishment), District- Siwan

¶11

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Siwan

¶12

The Circle Officer Andar, Distt.- Siwan

¶13

The Circle Inspector, Andar, Distt.- Siwan

¶14

The Treasury Officer, Siwan

¶15

.... .... Respondents/ Respondents

¶16

====================================================== Appearance :

¶17

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Advocate. For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh A.C. to G.P. 15

¶18

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

and

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER

¶21

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

5 03-08-2012 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14^th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 16489 of 2004, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶23

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant, a Revenue Clerk under the District Collector, Siwan for acts of misconduct amounting to lack of integrity. It was alleged that the petitioner had made 57 mutation entries without the authority of law and for the related charges. It was also alleged that the appellant was guilty of insubordination in as much as he did not attend weekly meetings and he used to leave the

¶24

Patna High Court LPA No.673 of 2011 (5) dt.03-08-2012

¶25

2 / 3

¶26

headquarter without permission.

¶27

In answer to the said charge sheet the appellant admitted the illegal mutation entries made by him. In view of the admission made by him, pursuant to the order made by the Collector, Siwan, under communication dated 20^th November 2004 issued by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Siwan the appellant was visited with punishment of (i) withholding of all future increments; (ii) reduction to the minimum in the pay scale; and (iii) he has been debarred forever from revenue work. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in above CWJC No. 16489 of 2004 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal.

¶28

Learned Advocate Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee has appeared for the appellant. He has assailed the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. He has submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under the charge sheet issued by the Circle Officer without the authority of law. The marginal note in the charge sheet suggests a pre-determined mind. The enquiry is, therefore, vitiated. He has next submitted that no proper enquiry was conducted against the appellant. The order of punishment was made against the appellant without giving him the report of the enquiry officer. He has also submitted that the order of punishment was made by the officer subordinate to the disciplinary authority.

¶29

The contentions are required to be rejected on the sole ground that the said contentions are raised for the first time before us. In any view of the matter we do not find any substance in the contentions raised before us.

¶30

Patna High Court LPA No.673 of 2011 (5) dt.03-08-2012

¶31

3 / 3

¶32

It is evident that the charge sheet was issued by the Circle Officer under the instruction of the Deputy Collector (Establishment) and the Additional Collector. The law does not require that the charge sheet must be issued by the disciplinary authority alone. The marginal note in the charge sheet is made in respect of placing the appellant under suspension pending the disciplinary proceeding. It cannot be read to mean a predetermined mind.

¶33

As to the disciplinary proceeding, we may note that major charge was that of making revenue entries illegally. Other charges were ancillary to the main charge. The appellant admitted the charge of making revenue entries illegally. In view of the admission made by the appellant, no further enquiry was necessitated. Having regard to the gravity of misconduct committed by the appellant, the disciplinary authority has made the order of punishment as recorded hereinabove. It is not in dispute that the District Collector, Siwan was the disciplinary authority. Although the communication had been sent by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), the order discloses that the order was made by the Collector, Siwan- the disciplinary authority. The order of punishment cannot be said to have been made by the authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority.

¶34

No other contention is raised before us. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine .

¶35

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶36

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶37

Sujit/-

Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishan Deo v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishan Deo v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Kanubhai Desai Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Tarkeshwar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Vijoya Narain Prasad and Ors.

Smt.Priyadarshika Vanita Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Arjati Trading Pvt.ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mahendra Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.