Allowed

Chandra Deo Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC3 Jan 2014CWJC/6012/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a disciplinary penalty order. Court held that an appellate order dismissing an appeal without hearing the petitioner, after a personal hearing was accorded by the predecessor, cannot be sustained as it renders the grant of hearing purposeless. Order set aside and appellate authority directed to hear petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.6.2006 set aside and quashed; Respondent No.3 directed to accord personal hearing to petitioner; Petitioner reinstated pending appeal disposal.

Chandra Deo Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6012 of 2013

¶2

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

¶3

Chandra Deo Singh, A/C No. 8306845, Ex- Senior Auditor (At Present Under compulsory retirement ), office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, Rajendra Path, Patna S/o Late Shyam Lal Singh, at Present residing At House No. 142, Road No. 3A, Mohalla - Chitrakut Nagar, P.O. Digha, Danapur, District - Patna

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Finance), New Delhi

¶5

The Financial Advisor (Defence Services ), Room No. 140, South Block, New Delhi - 110001

¶6

The Controller General of Defence Accounts, West Block - V.R,K, Puram, New Delhi - 110066

¶7

The Deputy Controller General of Defence Accounts (Admin), West Block - V.R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066

¶8

The Controller of Defence Accounts, Rajendra Path, Patna - 19

¶9

The Deputy Controller of Defence Accounts (AN), Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, Rajendra Path, Patna - 19

¶10

The Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts (AN), Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, Rajendra Path, Patna - 19

¶11

The Senior Accounts Officer (AN), Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, Rajendra Path, Patna - 19

¶12

The Pay And Accounts Office (Other Ranks) Bihar Regimental Centre, Danapur Cantt. Now J.O.B. Sub Area Danapur Cantt., through its OfficerIn-charge

¶13

The Assistant Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, 30, Gorachand Road, Kolkata

¶14

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pradip Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.A.Shamsi, A.S.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)

¶15

4 03-01-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶16

While serving as a Senior Accountant in the office of the

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.6012 of 2013 (4) dt.03-01-2014

¶18

¶19

Controller of Defence Accounts, Patna, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the present petitioner on the charge of misappropriation of fund allegedly committed by the petitioner. The disciplinary proceeding, so initiated, culminated, vide order dated 29.8.2005, into imposition of penalty, on the petitioner, of his compulsory retirement from service, with effect from 1.9.2005, by making 5% cut on compensation pension.

¶20

Aggrieved by the penalty so imposed on him, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. In the appeal petition, the petitioner had sought for personal hearing by the appellate authority. This request was acceded to and a personal hearing was accorded to the petitioner, on 18.3.2006, by Sri B.K.Mishra, who was, at the relevant point of time, Controller General of Defence Accountant, Government of India.

¶21

However, while the personal hearing had been accorded to the petitioner by Sri B.K.Mishra aforementioned on 18.3.2006, no order on the appeal, which the petitioner had preferred, was passed by the said Sri B.K.Mishra; rather, the successor-in-office of the said Sri B.K.Mishra passed an order, on 27.6.2006, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal.

¶22

Thus, while the petitioner’s appeal was heard by Sri B.K.Mishra, the order, dismissing the appeal, was made by the

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.6012 of 2013 (4) dt.03-01-2014

¶24

¶25

successor-in-office as indicated and it is the order, dated 27.6.2006, which stands impugned in this writ petition.

¶26

Considering the fact that the appellate authority had decided to accord personal hearing to the petitioner, the passing of the impugned order, dated 27.6.2006, by a person, who had not heard the petitioner in appeal, cannot be sustained or else, the personal hearing, which had been accorded to the petitioner, would be rendered purposeless, redundant and otiose .

¶27

Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order, dated 27.6.2006, calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the appeal needs, to be heard, in terms of the prayer of the petitioner, by the appropriate authority.

¶28

In the result and forgoing reasons, the impugned order, dated 27.6.2006, is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶29

The respondent no.3, who is the appellate authority, in the present case, is hereby directed to accord personal hearing to the petitioner on his appeal and, then, to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶30

With the direction, which we have passed above, the petitioner stands reinstated in service; but on account of the fact

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.6012 of 2013 (4) dt.03-01-2014

¶32

¶33

that he had been under suspension during course of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner, upon his re-instatement, shall be kept under suspension until appropriate order(s), in accordance with law, as has been directed hereinbefore, is passed by the appropriate authority on the petitioner’s appeal.

¶34

In order to avoid delay in disposal of the petitioner’s appeal, we direct that the appeal shall be heard and disposed of within a period of three months from today.

¶35

Before parting with the record, we make it clear that this Court has not expressed, and shall not be taken to have expressed, any opinion on the correctness, veracity or otherwise of the grievances, which have been raised by the petitioner in his appeal, except that his appeal ought to be decided by the competent authority upon hearing the petitioner in person.

¶36

With the above observations and directions, this writ application shall stand disposed of.

¶37

No costs.

¶38

(I. A. Ansari, J)

¶39

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

¶40

A.I./-

Chandra Deo Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Deo Singh v. The Union Of India 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

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Chandreshwar Pandit

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Bipin Bihari Prasad and Ors.

The Union Of India Ors. Vs Dinesh Kamti

Pradeep Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Rana Gangeshwar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Azhar Ali and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.