The Patna High Court dismissed an Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar. The bench upheld the Single Judge's order quashing a dismissal order because the Inquiry Officer failed to lead oral or documentary evidence as mandated by Rule 17(14).
I.A. No. 9749 of 2018 allowed; L.P.A. No. 1813 of 2018 dismissed.
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 Letters Patent Appeal No.1813 of 2018 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9775 of 2016
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Vyas Paswan, Son of Sri Baburam Paswan, Resident of Village-Malti, P.S.Asthamwan, District-Nalanda at Biharsharif.
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Naresh Dikshit, Special P.P. (Mines). Mr. B.B. Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-03-2019
Re: I.A. No. 9749 of 2018
Heard Shri Naresh Dikshit, Public Prosecutor
(Mines) for the appellants.
days.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1813 of 2018 dt.06-03-2019 2/6
cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be
within time.
accordingly.
Re: L.P.A. No. 1813 of 2018
Learned counsel for the appellants urged that learned Single Judge has not taken notice of the material that was on record and found reference in the charges. The contention is that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, therefore, is incorrect.
found that the charges were proved, as a result whereof, loss of revenue took place, and in the absence of any satisfactory reply with regard to the withdrawal and deposit of amount, the charges stood proved and, therefore, the orders of punishment did not require any interference by the learned Single Judge. It is urged that the order of dismissal was founded on valid material and misconduct was clearly established.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1813 of 2018 dt.06-03-2019 3/6
that the Disciplinary Authority finally came to the conclusion that he deserves to be dismissed.
“On a query made from Mr. Lalan Kumar learned counsel for the Mining Department to verify from the records of the disciplinary proceedings as to whether any evidence either oral or documentary was led during the course of enquiry as canvassed by Mr. Singh, the answer is in the negative. Learned counsel on scanning through the disciplinary records, has not been able to contest the submissions advanced by Mr. Singh.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1813 of 2018 dt.06-03-2019 4/6
memo, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The allegations were made about certain documents apart from the three challans mentioned in the charge memo. Such documents had found reference in the charge memo but in the counter affidavit it is alleged that the respondent-petitioner was given opportunity to give full reply and produce evidence in his defence. This stand in the counter affidavit has been met with by the learned Single Judge in the following manner in the impugned judgment:
“While I have already noted the illegality in the charge memo drawn which neither mentions the name of the witnesses nor records any documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer has been rather adventurous in recording his finding of guilt of the petitioner without bothering to remind the Presenting Officer of his obligation to lead evidence as mandated under Rule 17(14) of ‘the Rules’ which reads under:
“17 (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be crossexamined by or on behalf of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1813 of 2018 dt.06-03-2019 5/6
Government Servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses, as it thinks fit.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1813 of 2018 dt.06-03-2019 6/6
instead, the matter was wrapped up by passing the order of dismissal and without any effective consideration thereof by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition due to procedural lapses, as indicated in the judgment, which this appeal fails to dislodge.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ)
(Anjana Mishra, J)
P.K.P./-Vikas
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 08.03.2019 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the public servant was proceduraly valid in the absence of evidence led during the inquiry.
Whether Rule 17(14) of the relevant Rules was complied with by the Inquiry Officer.
State of Bihar
Vyas Paswan
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Anjana Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
