Allowed

Binod Kumar Gupta v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC10 Mar 2015CWJC/14957/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of departmental enquiry and punishment orders due to vagueness of charges and violation of natural justice in not supplying the enquiry report for a second show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the disciplinary authority (Annexure-1) and the appellate authority (Annexure-2) involving censure, withholding of increments, and suspension benefits were quashed and the writ petition

Binod Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14957 of 2007 =========================================================== Binod Kumar Gupta, aged 51 years, son of Sri Sitaram Gupta resident of Baldeo Bhawan Rod, Mohanpur, Punaichak, P.S. Shastrinagar, District Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner - cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 2. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, patna 3. The Joint Secretary to Govt. Minor Irrigation Department, patna 4. The Chief Engineer (South) tube well sector, Minor Irrigation Department, Shekhpura, Patna 5. the Deputy Secretary to Govt. Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar For the Respondents: Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar , AC to AAG No. 10 ===========================================================

¶3

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

¶4

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶5

Date: 10-03-2015

¶6

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mrityunjay Kumar, learned AC to AAG No. 10.

¶7

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of an order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna. By the said order after departmental enquiry the petitioner was inflicted with three punishment which are:- (1) censure for 2000- 2001 (2) withholding of 3 increments without cumulative effect; and (3) the petitioner was not required to get anything during his suspension

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.14957 of 2007 dt.10-03-2015

¶9

2/7

¶10

period save and except subsistence allowance. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.4.2007 passed by Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment was rejected.

¶11

Short fact of the case is that the petitioner on certain charges was put under suspension vide order contained in Memo No. 4770 dated 20.9.2003 in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter memo of charge was served through Annexure - 5 to the writ petition and after departmental enquiry the conducting officer submitted report. In its report the conducting officer found charges partly proved. After submission of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority has passed the order vide Annexure - 1 to the writ petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of punishment firstly on the ground that in the departmental proceeding charge served on the petitioner was completely vague and on such charge it was difficult for the petitioner to give categorical explanation. However, he had submitted a detailed explanation and also had indicated that charge is vague. He further submits that before conducting departmental enquiry a technical enquiry was got conducted on the basis of complaint received from one Sri Radha Ram, the then Executive Engineer. The technical enquiry was

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.14957 of 2007 dt.10-03-2015

¶14

3/7

¶15

conducted by a committee consisting of Chief Engineer (South), Tube wells, Superintending Engineer, Tube wells and Executive Engineer, Tube wells, Patna Division. During the technical enquiry no irregularities were found. Even thereafter the petitioner was proceeded departmentally on a vague charge. Of- course the petitioner tried to justify his innocence and the enquiry officer also found that many of the charges had not been proved, however, on part prove of some charges enquiry report was submitted and thereafter the disciplinary authority without following the principle of natural justice as well as law settled by the Apex Court, without supplying enquiry report and asking for second show cause, passed the impugned order. He submits that since the order of punishment was itself illegal, the petitioner preferred an appeal giving detailed reasons for assailing the order of punishment. However, the appellate authority without application of mind, in a perfunctory manner, rejected the appeal vide Annexure - 2 to the writ petition. Accordingly, it has been prayed that both the orders are required to be set aside.

¶16

Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He has raised preliminary objection on the point that order of punishment is prima facie minor punishment and as such while exercising power of judicial review this court may not interfere

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.14957 of 2007 dt.10-03-2015

¶18

4/7

¶19

with the order. He further submits that the fact regarding enquiry report was within the knowledge of the petitioner and as such, only by way of non -supply of enquiry report order of punishment may not be interfered with. He further submits that it was a case of financial irregularity, however, lenient view was taken and minor punishments were imposed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that ofcourse so far order of punishment no. 1 and 2 are concerned, those are minors but the punishment of forfeiture of salary save and except subsistence allowance for such a long time is apparently a major punishment. He submits that he was put under suspension on 20.9.2003 without any reason and the petitioner continued under suspension till the date of order of punishment i.e. 6^th July 2005.

¶21

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Since the petitioner has raised an issue that charge was completely vague, the court is of the opinion that it is required to be reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶22

vkjksi i= vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh dk uke %& Jh fouksn dqekj xqIrk Iknuke %& lgk;d vfHk; a rk Js.kh %& f}rh; dksfV %& jktif=r -&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& vkjksi dk fo’k; vkjksi dk fooj.k foRrh; vfu;ferrk@dnkpkj uydi ize.Myw ] iVuk ¼i0½ fcgVk ds

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.14957 of 2007 dt.10-03-2015

¶24

5/7

¶25

ljdkjh fu;eks a dk mYy a ?ku inLFkku vof/k es a foRrh; o’kZ vkfn A 2000&2001 es a ize.My v a rxZr fofHkUu uydwiks a ds ukyk ejEefr en djk;s x;s dk;ks Z ds fy, infu;fr ds rgr izkdyu rS;kj djuk] djk;s x;s dk;ksZ dh tk Wa p ugh a djuk rFkk 1]85]722 :0 ds vfu;fer Hkqxrku es a dk;Zikyd vfHk; a rk dks lg;ksx iznku djuk

¶26

Lkk{;%& eq[; vfHk;rk ¼n0½] uydwi a izHkkx] iVuk ds i=k a d&5 xksfnuk a d& 24-1-2003

¶27

ljdkj ds mi lfpo] Yk?kq fl a pkbZ foHkkx] iVuk A 31@01@14

¶28

I have also perused the enquiry report of the conducting officer which has been brought on record as Annexure - 8 to the writ petition. On perusal of the enquiry report it appears that though in the charge nothing has been indicated regarding misconduct committed by the petitioner in respect of which tube well, the conducting officer has divided charges under several heads and examining the complaint / irregularity in tube wells situated at number of places has recorded its findings. In the findings of the enquiry report most of the charges were not considered as proved. Only partial irregularities i.e. none proper supervision by the petitioner in respect of three schemes was considered as proved. The court is conscious of the fact that at the stage of judicial review this court is not required to examine the enquiry report in detail, but in view of the fact that a plea has been taken that memo of charge was vague,

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.14957 of 2007 dt.10-03-2015

¶30

6/7

¶31

the court was persuaded to cursory examine the enquiry report. Examining the enquiry report vis –a – vis charge, the court is in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that charge was vague. Moreover, the allegation of the petitioner that enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and no second show cause notice was issued, has not been disputed by the respondent / State. It is well settled that in a departmental enquiry after receipt of the enquiry report it is mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to supply the enquiry report and ask an explanation on the basis of the enquiry report. Since this formality has not been done by the disciplinary authority, there is no hesitation in interfering with the order of punishment. So far order of the appellate authority is concerned, on examination of the same it is evident that the appellate authority has not recorded plausible reason. Of- course, at the time of affirmance with the order of the disciplinary authority there is no requirement to give a detailed reason, even then, the appellate authority was required to indicate reasons succinctly in its order while rejecting the appeal.

¶32

In view of the facts particularly the fact that the principle of natural justice has been given go by by the disciplinary authority, there is no reason to allow the impugned order to sustain. Accordingly, the order of the disciplinary authority contained in

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.14957 of 2007 dt.10-03-2015

¶34

7/7

¶35

Annexure - 1 as well as appellate authority contained in Annexure - 2 are hereby set aside.

¶36

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶37

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

¶38

Praful/-

¶39

Binod Kumar Gupta v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Gupta 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

Surendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Prahlad Chandra Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Labh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chunu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dukhan Sah Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shashi Kant Tiwary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.