Partly allowed

Sonu Pathak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Apr 2014L.P.A/381/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held that discharging an appellant from Bihar Home Guard service without an independent inquiry after he denied charges of indiscipline violated natural justice. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside both the Single Judge's refusal and the discharge order.

What did the court decide?

The judgment declining to interfere and the order of discharge from service are set aside with liberty to hold an independent inquiry before taking further disciplinary action.

Sonu Pathak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.381 of 2014 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9463 of 2011

¶3

======================================================

¶4

SONU PATHAK, SON OF SRI PHANINDRA NATH PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELPA POLICE STATION SADAR CHAPRA, DISTRICT SARAN

¶5

.... .... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶8

INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM HEAD COMMANDANT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GENERAL POLICE AND FIRE BRIGADE

¶9

COMMANDANT, SPECIAL BATTALION, BIHAR HOME GUARD, BIHTA 4. DEPUTY COMMANDANT, SPECIAL BATTALION, BIHAR HOME GUARD, BIHTA

¶10

DISTRICT COMMANDANT, BIHAR HOME GUARD POLICE, PATNA

¶11

RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF MAHESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHWANI TOLA POST OFFICE RAMPUR DIYARA, POLICE STATION MAHER, DISTRICT PATNA.

¶12

.... .... Respondents

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, G.A. VII

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI AND

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)

¶19

3 28-04-2014 This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 26.9.2013, passed, in CWJC No. 9463 of 2011, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the order, dated 10.03.2011, passed by respondent No. 2, namely, Inspector General –cum- Head Commandant, Bihar Home Guard Battalion, Patna, discharging the appellant from the role of Bihar Home Guard under Section

¶20

Patna High Court LPA No.381 of 2014 (3) dt.28-04-2014

¶21

2/7

¶22

7(iv) of Bihar Home Guards Rules, 1953.

¶23

2. The facts of the case may, in brief, be set out as

¶24

under:

¶25

(i) The appellant, having been appointed as a Home Guard, was assigned to Special Battalion and sent for training. On completion of the training from 19.12.2008 to 21.9.2009 and 7.6.2008 to 18.7.2008, the appellant was granted the necessary certificate of training. While the appellant was on probation, a letter, dated 08.06.2010, was issued by respondent No. 3, namely, Commandant, Special Battalion, Bihar Home Guard Battalion, Bihta, addressed to respondent No. 2, namely, Inspector General –cum- Head Commandant, Home Guard Battalion and Fire-Brigade Bureau, Bihar, Patna, informing the latter that on 07.06.2010, several Home Guards had raised slogans demanding reservation of certain posts, in the Police, for direct recruitment from Home Guard personnel and created thereby a situation of indiscipline. Acting upon the letter, dated 08.06.2010, aforementioned, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against 8 (eight) Home Guards, who were named in the report, dated 08.06.2010, aforementioned.

¶26

(ii) Among the said eight Home Guards, the name of the appellant had not figured. However, the enquiry report of

¶27

Patna High Court LPA No.381 of 2014 (3) dt.28-04-2014

¶28

3/7

¶29

the disciplinary proceeding, so drawn, mentioned the name, amongst others, of the present appellant as one of the persons, who was involved in the said act of indiscipline committed on 07.06.2010.

¶30

(iii) Based on the inquiry report, a notice was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause, if any, as to why he shall not be discharged for his act of indiscipline committed on 07.06.2010.

¶31

(iv) To the notice to show cause, so issued, the appellant submitted his reply denying that he had participated, in any manner, in the said act of indiscipline. The further submission of the appellant was that he was, on leave, at home, on 07.06.2010, in connection with his cousin’s wedding on 06.06.2010 and was, thus, not present, on 07.06.2010, at the place, where the alleged occurrence was said to have taken place.

¶32

(v) Considering, however, the fact that the enquiry report, which had been submitted earlier against the said eight Home Guards, also named the present appellant as one of the persons involved in the said occurrence, an order was made, on 10.03.2011, by respondent No.2, whereunder the appellant was discharged from service.

¶33

Patna High Court LPA No.381 of 2014 (3) dt.28-04-2014

¶34

4/7

¶35

(vi) Aggrieved by his discharge from service, as mentioned above, the appellant impugned the order, dated 10.03.2011, by way of a writ petition, which gave rise to CWJC No. 9463 of 2011.

¶36

3. The appellant’s contention, in his writ petition, was that the enquiry report, which had indicted him, was held behind his back and when he had denied the charge levelled against him, there ought to have been an independent enquiry to determine if he had, in fact, participated in the alleged act of indiscipline or not

¶37

4. By an order, under appeal, a learned single Judge of this Court has not accepted the contention of the appellant and has, therefore, refused to interfere with the impugned discharge of the appellant-constable as a Home Guard personnel.

¶38

5. We have heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, G.A. VII, for the respondents.

¶39

6. Appearing before us, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel, has pointed out that even in the enquiry report, which has been made basis of discharge of the appellant, what was mentioned was that the appellant was

¶40

Patna High Court LPA No.381 of 2014 (3) dt.28-04-2014

¶41

5/7

¶42

standing behind those particular persons, who were involved in the protest and raising slogans, but no material was produced, in the course of the enquiry, which could reveal that the appellant had participated in the protest.

¶43

7. The above submission, made on behalf of the appellant, does not take into account the fact that if a person stands behind slogan shouting personnel as a supporter, it is an overt act of indiscipline and may not be condoned. The question, however, remains as to whether the present appellant had done any overt act indicating that he had supported the slogan shouting or he was a part of the group of Home Guard personnel who had raised slogans.

¶44

8. On giving our due consideration to the facts of the present case, we find that when the appellant had denied the correctness of the charge levelled against him by contending that he was not even present at the place, where the said act of indiscipline had taken place, and that he was innocent, there ought to have been an independent enquiry and, depending upon the outcome of the enquiry, further action could have been taken after, of course, furnishing to the appellant an opportunity of showing cause, if any, against the adverse findings, if any, reached in the latter enquiry.

¶45

Patna High Court LPA No.381 of 2014 (3) dt.28-04-2014

¶46

6/7

¶47

9. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order, dated 10.03.2011, discharging the appellant from service did not satisfy the requirements of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no specific enquiry was held to determine if the appellant was involved in the act of indiscipline as has been alleged against him. Viewed from this angle, we are also clearly of the view that the learned single Judge fell into serious error in refusing to interfere with the order, dated 10.03.2011, whereunder the appellant stands discharged from service.

¶48

10. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal partly succeeds. The impugned order, dated 26.09.2013, passed in CWJC No. 9463 of 2011, is hereby set aside. As a logical consequence thereto, the impugned order, dated 10.03.2011, whereby the appellant has been discharged from service, is also set aside with liberty given to the respondents to proceed against the appellant, in accordance with law, after holding an enquiry to determine if the appellant was, not notwithstanding his denial, involved in the said alleged act of indiscipline or not and, then, take such a disciplinary proceeding to its logical conclusion as may be permissible in law.

¶49

Patna High Court LPA No.381 of 2014 (3) dt.28-04-2014

¶50

7/7

¶51

11. The Letters Patent Appeal shall stand disposed of

¶52

in terms of the above observations and directions.

¶53

(I. A. Ansari, J.)

¶54

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)

¶55

Shashi.

Sonu Pathak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Pathak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Prakaesh Suman Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Ramesh Chandra and Anr.

Sudhir Kumar Ojha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Baleshwar Singh Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Santosh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Sri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava and Anr.