Allowed

Jaggu Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC27 Jan 2015CWJC/7442/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a departmental proceeding initiated against a government servant. The petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement order, claiming violation of natural justice. The court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry with proper service of notices and an opportunity to be heard, directing the authorities to conclude it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 8th October 2012 and letter dated 1st January 2013. Remanded the matter back to the respondent to continue the departmental enquiry within three months with liberty to continue

Jaggu Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CWJC No.7442 of 2013

¶3

=========================================================== Jaggu Prasad Singh S/o Late Akalu Singh, resident of village - Mobarakpur, TolaDumaria, P.S.- Islampur, District- Nalanda.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna

¶6

The Deputy General Manager, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 4. The Director (Security), BSEB, Vidyapit Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 5. The D.I.G. Vigilance and Security, BSEB, Patna 4. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bhagalpur Electric Supply Area, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 5. The Executive Engineer. Electric Central Electric Store, Munger, DistrictMunger. 6. The General Manager - cum - Chief Engineer Bhagalpur Electric Supply Area, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur 7. The Executive Engineer, Electric, Central Electric Store, Munger, DistrictMunger 8. The Secretary, Energy Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

.... .... Respondent/s

¶8

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Adv.

¶9

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶10

Date: 27-01-2015

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for South Bihar Power Distribution Company.

¶12

In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 8^th October 2012 (Annexure-23) by which the petitioner has been compulsory retired from the service in exercise of power under Section 14 (IX) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 and also challenging the order dated 1^st

¶13

Patna High Court null No.7442 of 2013 dt.27-01-2015

¶14

2/4

¶15

January 2013 (Annexure-25) by which the information has been served upon the petitioner that his appeal has been rejected.

¶16

Filtering unnecessary facts, the petitioner was employed in erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board now it is South Bihar Power Distribution Company, for convenience, it will be mentioned as ‘Board’.

¶17

The petitioner vide order dated 2^nd August 2011 was transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer, Electric Central Store, Munger as Guard but he remained absent unauthorisedly since 29^th August 2011 from his duty, for that, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide order dated 9^th November 2011 and notice was sent to his permanent address vide order dated 25^th August 2012, when he did not respond, an ex parte enquiry proceeding was conducted against him. The 2^nd show cause notice was also sent to his permanent address vide Office Order No. 85 dated 22^nd June 2012. When he had not appeared again, notice was published in the newspaper.

¶18

On the basis of publication of the notice, the petitioner appeared on 21^st August 2012, accordingly there he was served 2^nd show cause whereupon the petitioner submitted his explanation and also requested to give him a chance to participate in the departmental proceeding whereupon vide letter No. 726 dated 10^th September 2012

¶19

Patna High Court null No.7442 of 2013 dt.27-01-2015

¶20

3/4

¶21

the petitioner was called by the Disciplinary Authority in his chamber on 14^th September 2012. The petitioner remained physically present on the aforesaid date. As the petitioner could not give proper reply to the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority which led to passing of the impugned order.

¶22

It appears from the record that notices, which were sent to the petitioner, returned unserved and when the notice was published in the newspaper, the petitioner appeared on 21^st August 2012 and requested to give him an opportunity to participate in the departmental proceeding.

¶23

Natural justice is inbuilt requirement for conducting the departmental enquiry. If the departmental enquiry is conducted without giving a fair opportunity then the order of punishment cannot be sustained.

¶24

The employer has a right to initiate a proceeding to take action against his employee at the same time it is required to give opportunity of effective hearing to the employee concerned.

¶25

In the present case only one notice was sent that returned unserved. When the petitioner could know about enquiry, he made prayer for allowing him to participate in the departmental enquiry. It has been submitted that two witnesses have been examined in the case but the order sheet does not disclose that those were called

¶26

Patna High Court null No.7442 of 2013 dt.27-01-2015

¶27

4/4

¶28

upon and the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine them and also the order of appeal which was communicated to the petitioner does not disclose the plea of petitioner was taken into consideration and, as such, the order dated 8^th October 2012 and letter dated 1^st January 2013 (Annexure-25) are quashed and the matter is remanded back with the liberty to the Respondents to continue the departmental enquiry and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶29

Payment will be made subject to outcome of the departmental enquiry and the petitioner is directed to co-operate in the departmental enquiry. If the petitioner fails to participate in the aforesaid enquiry then Respondent will be at liberty to pass order in accordance with law.

¶30

As the grievance has been raised by the petitioner that he has not been served the charge sheet, let the proper authority ensure service of charge sheet including entire material brought during the enquiry.

¶31

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶32

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶33

Mahesh/-

¶34

Jaggu Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaggu Prasad Singh 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

Most. Shobha Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Rameshwar Kamti Vs The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Hari Man Mohan Choudhary Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Jaggu Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Krishna Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.