Allowed

Ganesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Feb 2019CWJC/3881/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Patna High Court quashed a disciplinary order imposing punishment by withholding increments on an excise officer. The court held the order was illegal as it differed from the inquiry officer's exoneration without assigning reasons or relying on evidentiary material from the inquiry. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order of punishment dated 20.11.2014 imposing withholding of four annual increments is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

Ganesh Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3881 of 2015

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ganesh Prasad son of late Muneshwar Prasad, Resident of village- Sahari, PSBarh, District- Patna.

¶4

.. ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar and Ors

¶7

The Deputy Secretary od Excise Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Commissioner of Excise Bihar.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anshuman Singh, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Date : 22-02-2019

¶12

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State.

¶13

One charge memo was issued to the petitioner under Resolution dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government in Bihar in the Prohibition & Excise Department of the Government of Bihar. At the relevant time the petitioner was a Superintendent Excise posted at Muzaffarpur. The charge memo alleged that some seven persons have lost their life by consuming illicit liquor in the night of 30.09.2012. It was found that at the relevant time the petitioner was on leave. In spite of information of the occurrence, petitioner delayed in coming to Muzaffarpur from his leave. It is also alleged that due to delay

¶14

in issuance/renewal of license for the country made liquor manufacturers the local requirement was being fulfilled by illicit sources.

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.3881 of 2015 dt.22-02-2019 2/8

¶16

Since petitioner had failed to renew the license of manufactures of country made liquor within time situation arose where illicit liquor was being sold in his jurisdiction. It is also alleged that petitioner failed to take appropriate steps to prevent illicit trade of country made liquor in his place of posting at Muzaffarpur. Another aspect of the charges is that he was not lifting sufficient quantity from the Bihar State Beverage Corporation, resulting in loss of revenue in the State.

¶17

All the allegations were inquired into. The petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after a thorough enquiry into the allegations submitted his enquiry report on 16.05.2013. The petitioner was exonerated of all the charges as Enquiry Officer found the charges not proved. The petitioner thereafter was served with the second show cause purporting to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in exercise of powers under Rules 8(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005’). The petitioner thereafter submitted his response to the second show cause.

¶18

The action of the Disciplinary Authority consequent upon the petitioner’s response is brought in question by counsel

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.3881 of 2015 dt.22-02-2019 3/8

¶20

for the petitioner in the instant proceedings. It is submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority notifying the punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It is also submitted that perusal of the order issued by the Disciplinary Authority shows that the orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind as also non-assigning of reason.

¶21

The other submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that no reliance is placed on any material/evidence to sustain the charges against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority purporting to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules.

¶22

Counsel for the State, however, has submitted that as a result of inaction on the part of the petitioner there has been loss of life. The allegations against the petitioner were severe in nature. After affording due opportunity and in accordance with law, punishment order has been inflicted upon the petitioner.

¶23

At this juncture this Court would prefer it appropriate to reproduce the provisions under which the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer to proceed. The relevant provisions of Rule 18 (2) and thereafter

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.3881 of 2015 dt.22-02-2019 4/8

¶25

uptill Rule 18(6) are being reproduced herein :

¶26

“ 18. Action on the inquiry report. - (2)

¶27

The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the enquiry report as per Rule 17 (23)(ii) or as per sub-rule (1), shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose.

¶28

(3) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, together with its own findings, if any, as provided in sub-rule (2), to the government servant who may submit, if he or she so desires, his or her written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days.

¶29

(4) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation or submission, if any, submitted by the Government Servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub rules (5) and (6).

¶30

(5) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 14 should be imposed on the Government Servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.3881 of 2015 dt.22-02-2019 5/8

¶32

contained in Rule 19, make an order imposing such penalty.

¶33

(6) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses [(vi) to (xi)] of Rule 14 should be imposed on the Government Servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government Servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed.”

¶34

From bare perusal of the procedure prescribed under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 it is more than obvious that when the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, having regard to his own findings on all or any of the articles of charges on the basis of evidence adduced during the enquiry he is to form an opinion. Then only the penalties specified under Rule 14 can be imposed upon a government servant.

¶35

No evidence or material adduced in the course of enquiry has been referred to by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned notification dated 20.11.2014. The Conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority are not only without reference to any

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.3881 of 2015 dt.22-02-2019 6/8

¶37

material/evidence on record, but are also without assigning any reasons in support of its conclusions. The relevant portion of the Disciplinary Authority’s punishment order is being reproduced for easy reference :

¶38

“5. lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds tkWp izfrosnu ,oa Jh izlkn ds }kjk lefiZr Li’Vhdj.k dks Bksl lk{;ksa ds vkHkko esa larks’kizn ugha ekurs gq, mls vLohdkj djrs gq, ogn n.M ds :i esa pkj osru of);kW lap;kRed izHkko ls fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 2005 ;Fkk la”kksf/kr 2007 ds fu;e 14 ¼Vi½ ds rgr~ vo:) djus gsrq fu.kZ; fy;k x;k] ftl ij ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn; dk vuqeksnu izkIr djrs gq, foHkkxh; i=kad&2646 fnukad &23-06-2014 } kjk fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx ls ijke”kZ dh ekax dh x;hA

¶39

6- fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx iVuk us i=kad&1393 fnukad 12-09-2014 }kjk foHkkx dks vk;ksx dk ijke”kZ Hkstk x;k] vk;ksx ds }kjk fcuk fdlh foospu ds ;g fu’df’kZr dj fn;k x;k gS fd izLrkfor n.M vuqikfrd ugha gSA rdZlaxr dkj.kksa ds vHkko esa leh{kksijkar vk;ksx dk fu’dk’kZ Lohdkj ;ksX; izrhr ugha gks ldkA vr% vk;ksx ds ijke”kZ dks vekU; djrs gq, foHkkx }kjk fopkfjr n.M ij ljdkj dk iquZ vuqeksnu izkIr djrs gq, izLrkfor n.M lEiq’V fd;k x;k gSA

¶40

7- vr,o mDr ds vkyksd] esa miyC/k lk{;ksa ,oa rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij iw.kZ fopkjksijkar ljdkj }kjk fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 2005 ;Fkk la”kksf/kr 2007 ds

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.3881 of 2015 dt.22-02-2019 7/8

¶42

fu;e&14 ¼Vi½ ds rgr~ Jh x.ks”k izlkn rRdkyhu v/kh{kd mRikn] eqt¶Qjiqj lEizfr v/kh{kd mRikn] jhxk vklouxg lhrke<+h dh pkj osruof);kW lap;kRed izHkko ls vo:) djus dk n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k x;k gSA”

¶43

From bare perusal of the said, it appears that the order does not contain any reason nor does it show any consideration of any material which has been adduced in the course of proceedings before the Enquiry Officer.

¶44

In para 5 of the order of the Disciplinary Authority in fact onus has been shifted to the petitioner to disprove the charge. The Disciplinary Authority has taken note of the fact that in view of failure of the petitioner to produced any evidence in support of his defence, the charges are considered to be proved. Such conclusion is perverse.

¶45

Background of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is that in the enquiry, Enquiry Officer had failed to bring home the charges. Upon differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer if a conclusion contrary thereto was to be recorded, it was the onus upon the Disciplinary Authority to support such conclusion by material/evidence adduced in the course of the enquiry. In absence of any material/evidence on record of the proceedings in support of the charges, conclusion

¶46

Patna High Court CWJC No.3881 of 2015 dt.22-02-2019 8/8

¶47

of the Disciplinary Authority contrary to the Enquiry Officer is not sustainable and in violation of procedure prescribed under

¶48

Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 taken note of above.

¶49

Conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority also suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and non-assigning of reasons.

¶50

The order of punishment dated 20.11.2014 issued by the Special Secretary, Registration Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar is quashed.

¶51

Writ petition is therefore, allowed.

¶52

The authorities would be at liberty to take a decision

¶53

afresh if the law permits.

¶54

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶55

Prakash/-

¶56

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date

Ganesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Prasad 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

Amit Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Nilam Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Radha Raman Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ranvir Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Shah Azad Siddiqui Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.