Allowed

Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Jan 2019CWJC/5232/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed a disciplinary order imposing compulsory retirement, holding that the authority failed to satisfy the procedural requirements of Rule 18(6) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 by not forming an opinion on charges or referencing evidence before imposing the penalty.

What did the court decide?

The notification dated 9.10.2014 imposing compulsory retirement and the subsequent orders rejecting the petitioner's application are quashed.

Ashok Kumar Maurya 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.5232 of 2015

¶2

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

¶3

Ashok Kumar Maurya son of Late Nathuni Prasad, Resident of VillageAkauna, P.O.- Sherghati, Police Station- Amas, District- Gaya, At Present Resident of Saraswati Sadan, Mohalla- Sanjay Nagar Road No.-5, P.O.- Postal Park, Police Station- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna

¶7

The Secretary cum I.G. Registration, Excise and Prohibition Registration Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

¶8

The Special Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Registration Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

¶9

The Joint Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Registration Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

¶10

The Deputy Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Registration Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

¶11

... ... Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, AC to GP 19

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-01-2019

¶16

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent State.

¶17

The petitioner was proceeded against in respect of certain charges alleging that he had wrongly classified the lands for the purpose of registration while functioning as District Sub Registrar at Khagaria. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges. On 5.12.2012 a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2015 dt.22-01-2019 2/6

¶19

Alleging violation of Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 the petitioner approached this Court earlier in CWJC No. 9923 of 2013. The second show cause dated 5.12.2012 was quashed by this Court on a finding that the procedure prescribed under Rule 18(2) had not been complied while issuing second show cause purporting to differ with findings of the Inquiry Officer favorable to the petitioner. After quashing of the order the authorities were granted liberty to proceed in accordance with the procedure. The extract of the order of the Court on the earlier writ petition is being reproduced:-

¶20

“It is in this background that Annexure-9 is required to be quashed and a direction is issued upon the disciplinary authority to give a notice of disagreement to the petitioner on the materials and the conclusion, in his opinion he derives after reading the enquiry report. Once such a notice is issued to the petitioner, the petitioner would be bound to respond to that and if not found satisfactory, a second show cause would be issued for appropriate decision to be taken on the outcome of the material for holing the petitioner to be guilty.

¶21

Writ application is allowed. Annexure-9 dated 5.12.2012 is quashed with a direction upon the disciplinary authority to issue a notice of disagreement on the materials which he feels the enquiry officer has committed mistake or omission and thereafter the law will take its course.

¶22

Since the disciplinary enquiry is going on for a long time and petitioner is under suspension for more than three years, the Court fixes a time-

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2015 dt.22-01-2019 3/6

¶24

frame of four months to complete the rest of the formalities.”

¶25

Thereafter the authorities have issued a second show cause notice disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The same is in purported exercise of power and procedure prescribed under Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 . The petitioner requested for some documents by his response dated 17.4.2014./ The same was supplied and thereafter on 17.6.2014 he has submitted his reply to the notice of disagreement. The Disciplinary Authority has thereafter notified the punishment of compulsory retirement under modification dated 9.10.2014 under Memo No. 437.

¶26

By placing order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 9.10.2014, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that having corrected their action under Rule 18(2) this time the authorities have again committed a violation of the procedure prescribed but under Rule 18(6) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. For the sake of convenience Rule 18(6) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 is being reproduced herein below:-

¶27

“18(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

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2015 dt.22-01-2019 4/6

¶29

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.”

¶30

The clear mandate of the Rule is that there is a duty cast upon the Disciplinary Authority that having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge on the basis of evidence adduced during enquiry an opinion has to be formed in such manner as has been prescribed under Rule 18(6) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. It is only thereafter that the Disciplinary Authority has the power to make an order imposing such penalty as it considers necessary. The order dated 9.10.2014 does not contain any conclusion or finding on any article of charge. No reference is made to any evidence whatsoever in the order dated 9.10.2014. The reasons assigned for imposing the punishment and exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 18(6) are to be found in para 3 of the notification of punishment dated 9.10.2014 issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The same is as follows:-

¶31

“ Jh ekS;Z }kjk fnukad 25&02&2013 dks lefiZr cpko ds fyf[kr vfHkdFku esa vlgefr ds fcUnqvksa ij ,slk dksbZ rF; ;k lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k tks u;s fljs ls fopkj.kh; gksA vr,o Jh ekS;Z ds cpko dk fyf[kr vfHkdFku dks vLohdkj djr s gq, lsok ls c[kkZLr djus ds laca/k esa

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2015 dt.22-01-2019 5/6

¶33

foHkkxh; i=kad& 3935 fnukad 10&06&2013 }kjk fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx ls ijke'kZ dh ekax dh x;hA fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx] iVuk }kjk i=kad&1487 fnukad 04&10&2013 ds } kjk foHkkxh; izLrko esa vlgefr iznku dh x;hA”

¶34

Clearly there is no reference to any evidence and neither is there any conclusion or finding of the Disciplinary Authority on any article of charge. The procedure under Rule 18(6) has not been observed while issuing notification of punishment in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 18(6).

¶35

The reason on which the punishment has been imposed is such so as to shift the onus of disproving the allegation upon the delinquent. It records that the petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence so as to merit consideration of the matter in a new way. The facts of the case are such that the Inquiry Officer had already exonerated the petitioner. If a decision contrary thereto was required to be taken then it was for the authorities to produce evidence or rely upon evidence produced during the course of enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. The infraction of the said Rule renders the decision to be vitiated as the same is contrary to the decision making process prescribed under Rule 18.

¶36

The notification dated 9.10.2014 is clearly unsustainable for the reasons indicated hereinabove. The order dated 9.10.2014

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2015 dt.22-01-2019 6/6

¶38

is therefore quashed. As a result of quashing of the order dated 9.10.2014 the order dated 29.1.2015 rejecting the petitioner’s application under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 is also unsustainable inasmuch as the same merely reaffirms the illegal conclusion contained in notification dated 9.10.2014. That apart the order dated 19.1.2015 is without assigning any reason and is cryptic order which by itself is unsustainable for the said defect.

¶39

The writ petition is allowed. As a result of quashing of the impugned orders the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶40

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶41

SNkumar/-

¶42

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	20.02.2019
Transmission Date	N/A

Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Maurya 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

Kundan Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Machhu Prasad Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Babu Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Anwar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.