Allowed

Sirajuddin v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Aug 2016CWJC/21058/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court set aside an administrative order deducting 10 percent pension for proved charges as it was passed without recording reasons of disagreement with the Inquiry Officer, violating natural justice principles. The order was also remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21.09.2007 and the order dated 20.07.2009 setting aside the conclusion were set aside and the matter remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed fro

Sirajuddin Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21058 of 2012 =========================================================== Sirajuddin, Son of Late Hasnuddin, permanent resident of Village Karmaini, P.O. Chandrauta, District - Kushi Nagar (U.P.), presently resident at 154 2^nd Haroon Nagar Colony, Phulwarisarif, P.S. Phulwarisarif, in the town and district - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶3

The State of Bihar through Agriculture Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶4

The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶5

The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶6

The Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna 6. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Deputy Director (Administration), Agriculture Directorate, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Accountant General , Bihar, Patna, Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, S.C. 23 Mr. Rohit Mishra, Advocate. For Accountant General : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. ===========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-08-2016

¶12

The challenge in the present writ application is to an order

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.21058 of 2012 dt.20-08-2016

¶14

2/4

¶15

passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21^st of September, 2007 whereby, 10 per cent pension was ordered to be deducted on account of Charge Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 said to have been proved against the petitioner.

¶16

The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 20^th of July, 2009 being barred by limitation. Aggrieved against the said orders, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner was charge-sheeted inasmuch as on seven different charges. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner but without recording any disagreement note, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order on 21^st of September, 2007 imposing punishment. Such order was challenged in appeal which was dismissed being barred by limitation.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State refers to the various findings of the Inquiry Officer to contend that some of the charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer whereas, in respect of some others, the petitioner was exonerated and that the Disciplinary Authority issued second show-cause notice sending a copy of the Inquiry Report and thereafter passed an order of punishment. The appeal was rightly dismissed as it was filed after gross delay.

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.21058 of 2012 dt.20-08-2016

¶20

3/4

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitioner was not even served second show-cause notice along with copy of the Inquiry Report apart from the fact that no reasons of disagreement was recorded, as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 ( 7 ) SCC 14 .

¶23

Learned counsel for the State could not refer to any averment which may support a fact that a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner along with the copy of the Inquiry Report. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on different charges require minute examination to return a finding whether some charges have been proved by the Inquiry Officer or not.

¶24

Since admittedly, an order of punishment has been passed but without recording any reasons of disagreement, such procedure violates the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (supra).

¶25

Consequently, an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21^st of September, 2007 and the order dated 20^th of July, 2009 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority with liberty to proceed from the stage of receipt of the Inquiry Report in accordance with law.

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.21058 of 2012 dt.20-08-2016

¶27

4/4

¶28

With the aforesaid direction, the writ application stands disposed of. (Hemant Gupta, J) P.K.P. N.A.F.R. U

Sirajuddin v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajuddin 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Lumbini Beverages Private Limited Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Hebe Ispat At Rashidchak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

East North Interconnection Company Ltd. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Chandrawati Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uday Shankar Pd. Vs The Bihar Vidhan Parishad and Ors.

Ram Prakash Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.