Allowed

Bal Krishna Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Oct 2016CWJC/2438/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an order imposing a major penalty of stoppage of increment on a government servant. The court held that the penalty order was invalid as the copy of the enquiry report was never served on the petitioner, violating the mandatory procedural requirements of the service rules. The matter was remitted to pass afresh. Provisions ruled upon were rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar Government S

What did the court decide?

The impugned penalty order bearing Memo No.568 dated 27.6.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Superintending Engineer to proceed afresh after serving the copy of the enquiry r

Bal Krishna Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2438 of 2014

¶3

=========================================================== Bal Krishna Pandey, Son of Late Gopal Pandey, Resident of Main Road, Shastrinagar, P.O. & P.S.- Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bikas Bhawan Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶7

1. The Additional Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bikas Bhawan Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bikas Bhawan Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶9

The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Magadh Circle, Near Mirza Galib College, Town and District- Gaya.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Magadh Circle, Near Mirza Galib College, Town and District- Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s

¶11

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate

¶14

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, AC to GA-1

¶15

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-10-2016

¶16

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Advocate No.1 for the State.

¶17

In the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass it would not require to delve deep into the merit of the case. Suffice it to say that the order of punishment bearing Memo No.568 dated 27.6.2011 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Magadh Road Circle, Gaya whereunder the petitioner is visited with the penalty of stoppage of one

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.2438 of 2014 dt.05-10-2016

¶19

¶20

increment with cumulative effect under rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) impugned at Annexure10, is questioned by the petitioner on amongst other grounds also on the ground that copy of the enquiry report was never handed over to the petitioner.

¶21

It is taking note of the submission that this Court vide order passed on 21.9.2016 required the learned State Counsel to verify the following, from the records:

¶22

(a) Whether the departmental enquiry has been conducted

¶23

by the enquiry officer ex-parte? and

¶24

(b) Whether copy of the enquiry report was served on the

¶25

petitioner?

¶26

Learned State Counsel has returned with the proceedings in the departmental proceeding to submit that while the answer to issue (a) posed is in the negative because the petitioner has participated in the disciplinary proceeding but in so far as the issue (b) is concerned, it is an admitted position that the copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner although the records show that he had the knowledge about the same.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the undisputed position that the order imposing a major

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.2438 of 2014 dt.05-10-2016

¶29

¶30

penalty has been passed by the Superintending Engineer without service of enquiry report as mandated under rule 18 of ‘the Rules’ the order of penalty bearing Memo No.568 dated 27.6.2011 impugned at Annexure-11 is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Magadh Road Circle, Gaya to proceed afresh but in accordance with law and only after service of copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner.

¶31

The writ petition is allowed subject to the stipulations aforementioned.

¶32

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶33

SKPathak/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	18-10-2016
Transmission Date	NA

Bal Krishna Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Krishna Pandey 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

Narad Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kavita Shrivastava Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bipra Raj Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Sharan Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shailendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Maa Laxmi Jee Rice Mill and Galla Bhandar Vs The State Of Bihar Through Its Sri Birendra Prasad Yadav and Ors.