The court quashed an office order withholding two increments due to non-hearing of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition.
The impugned office order stopping two annual increments was quashed and the authority asked to pass a fresh order after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10936 of 2008
===========================================================
Uday Shankar Roy, s/o Late Krishna Murari Roy, r/v- Khajpura, P.s. – Airport, District- Patna, at present posted as Driver Hawaldar of Police at State Cabinet Vigilance Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gutpa, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav (AAG-9) Mr. Rakesh Kumar (Spl.PP)Vig.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-02-2017
Heard Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Yadav learned AAG – 9 for the State.
The petitioner seeks quashing of office order no. 17/2008, as contained in Memo No. 131 dated 06.02.2008 issued under the signature of Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance), Bihar, Patna by which two increments of the petitioner was withheld.
Facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.10936 of 2008 dt.06-02-2017
2/3
petition are that petitioner was a Constable and working as Hawaldar Driver. Show-cause was issued to the petitioner as to why he remained absent on 20.04.2004 vide Memo No. 449 dated 11.05.2004. The petitioner submitted his show-cause. The Enquiry Conducting Officer did not find the charge proved and he simply found that the petitioner came on duty after one hour. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department censored the petitioner on 06.12.2007. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal, but the Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance), Bihar, Patna suo motu called for the record and inflicted punishment, stopping of two annual increments of the petitioner vide order, as contained in Memo No. 131 dated 06.02.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard before passing the order stopping the two annual increments of the petitioner. The order is in violation of Principle of Natural Justice.
Mr. S.D. Yadav learned A.A.G. – 9 has very fairly submitted that from the order, as contained in annexure-10, it appears that the petitioner was not heard.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, I find that the office order no. 17/2008, as contained in Memo No. 131 dated 06.02.2008 annexure-10 is passed without hearing the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10936 of 2008 dt.06-02-2017
3/3
therefore, the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, the aforesaid
order, as contained in Annexure-10 is quashed.
If the authority concerned, so desires may pass order
afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)
Vinita/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | NA |
| Uploading Date |
|
| Transmission Date |
NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order stopping annual increments is sustainable without hearing the employee.
Whether quashing of such an order is appropriate in violation of principles of natural justice.
Uday Shankar Roy
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
