Partly allowed

Ravindra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Oct 2019CWJC/9120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed a non-speaking punishment order stoppage of an increment and the appellate order dismissing the appeal due to procedural infirmities and lack of reasons, directing the respondents to calculate death-cum-retiral benefits for the deceased headmaster without the stoppage.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the punishment order stoppage of one increment and appellate order. Directed respondents to calculate death-cum-retiral benefits including the increment as if orders never existed, payable wit

Ravindra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9120 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

Shanti Devi, Wife of late Ravindra Kumar, In Charge Headmaster, Kalyan Singh High School Shamho and resident of Village Bijuliya, P.S. Shamho, District- Begusarai.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger

¶10

The District Magistrate, Begusarai

¶11

The District Education officer, Begusarai

¶12

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Roy, Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

4 16-10-2019

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶22

Initially the writ application was filed by the husband of the present petitioner. The present petitioner was substituted after death of original petitioner Ravindra Kumar on 27.04.2019 vide Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2019.

¶23

The original petitioner approached this Court against

¶24

the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education dated 07.07.2010 whereby the petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The appeal

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.9120 of 2016(4) dt.16-10-2019 2/6

¶26

preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Principal Secretary, Education Department vide order dated 29.06.2015.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that at the relevant time when the husband of the petitioner was working as Incharge Headmaster of the school. The five member committee was constituted for allocation of cheque of Rs.2,000/- to the girl students eligible for the benefit of Government financial assistance for purchase of bycycle under Mukhya Mantri Cycle and Poshak Yojna. In the process of distribution of cheque of Rs.2,000/- instead of Km. Madhu due to mistake the cheque of Rs.2,000/- was issued in favour of Reena Kumari. The original petitioner was proceeded for such lapse of distribution of cheque of Rs.2,000/- under the Chief Minister Cycle Distribution Scheme. The matter was enquire into and the Inquiry Officer namely the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger submitted his enquiry report on 15.12.2009. From the perusal of enquiry report it appears that the enquiry report is not a fact finding rather a kind of opinion expressed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger who was asked to submit enquiry report after enquiry into the allegation. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the original

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.9120 of 2016(4) dt.16-10-2019 3/6

¶29

petitioner Ravindra Kumar and on receipt of the show cause reply the petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment vide order contained in Annexure-10. The order of inflicting punishment is quoted below for ready reference;

¶30

Jh jfoUnz dqekj] izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid] dY;k.k flag mPp fo|ky; lkEgksa] csxqljk; dks bl dk;kZy; Kkikad 5995 fnukad 26-08-08 }kjk fuyafcr djrs gq, foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds v/khu fd;k x;k FkkA {ks=h; mi f”k{kk funs”kd eqaxsj izeaMy] eqaxsj ds Kkikad 1233 fnukad 13-12-09 }kjk izkIr tk¡p izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij leh{kk dh x;h] leh{ksijkur eq[;ea=h ckfydk lkbZfdy ;kstuk dh jkf”k dks forj.k foHkkxh; fn”kk funZs”k dh vuns[kh dj euekus <ax ls djus dk vkjksi izekf.kr ik;k x;kA izekf.kr vkjksi ds fy, f}rh; dkj.k iPNk dh ek¡x dh x;h FkhA f}rh; dkj.k iPNk dk mÙkj Lohdk;Z ;ksX; ugha jgus ds dkj.k Jh jfoUnz dqekj izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid] dY;k.k flag mPp fo|ky; lkEgks] csxqljk; dh ,d okkf’kZd foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶31

1- fuyacu vof/k isa”ku ifj;kstukFkZ drZO; vof/k ds #i esa ifjxf.kr dh tk;sxhA

¶32

Kkikad 9@l0 iz0vk0&132@08 3226 iVuk] fnukad 07@07@2010

¶33

izfrfyfi& {ks=h; f”k{kk mi funs”kd] eqaxsj izeaMy] eaqxsj@ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] csxqljk;@dks’kkxkj inkf/kdkjh] csxqljk;@voj izeaMy f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] csxqljk;@iz/kkuk/;kid@fo|ky; ds ojh;re f”k{kd ,oa Jh jfoUnz dqekj] izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid] dY;k.k flag mPp fo|ky; lkEgks] csxqljk; dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dk;kZFkZ izsf’krA

¶34

g0@&

¶35

The order inflicting punishment is non speaking order

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.9120 of 2016(4) dt.16-10-2019 4/6

¶37

as no prudent man can understand what was passing in the mind of disciplinary authority while inflicting punishment. The constitution Bench of the Apex Court has occasion to consider for the importance of the reason order in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984. The Apex Court has held out that reason order is the third principles of natural justice. The order contained in Annexure10 is non speaking order and as such it is unsustainable. When the matter was taken to the appellate authority, he dismissed the appeal. The reason in the appellate order is also indicate casual approach. Paragraph nos. 7 to 9 of the order dated 29.06.2015 is quoted below for ready reference to highlight the approach of appellate while deciding the appeal.

¶38

^^7- tkWp inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu ds voyksdu ls ;g Li’V gks jgk gS fd Jh jfoUnz dqekj izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid] dY;k.k flag mPp fo|ky;] lkEgks] csxwljk; ds }kjk foRrh; o’kZ 2007&08 esa ugha d{kk esa v/;;ujr Nk=kvksa ds chp eq[;ea=h lkbZfdy ;kstuk ds vUrxZr lkbZfdy forj.k esa fuf”pr ekin.Mksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, euekus rjhds ls vius eu eqrkfcd 2000@& :i;s dk psd forfjr fd;k x;k gSA

¶39

8- Jh dqekj ds }kjk vius Åij yxs vkjksi dks ekuoh; Hkwy crkrs gq, Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k gS vkSj buds }kjk vihy esa lquokbZ ds nkSjku dksbZ Hkh ,slk lk{; vFkok vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lds fd buds fo:) tks vkjksi yxk, x, Fks] og lR; ugha gSA

¶40

9- of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa funs”kd ¼ek0f”k0½] fcgkj iVuk }kjk Jh jfoUnz dqekj] izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid] dY;k.k

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.9120 of 2016(4) dt.16-10-2019 5/6

¶42

flag mPp fo|ky;] lkEgks] csxwljk; dks Kkikad& 3226] fnukad&07-07-2010 }kjk tks n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k x;k gS] mlesa fdlh rjg ds gLr{ksi dh vko”;drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vr% Jh dqekj ds vihy vH;kosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA^^

¶43

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the very initiation of departmental proceeding is unsustainable as there was no specific charge constituting misconduct, warranting departmental proceeding. As discussion herein above, the Court find manifold procedure infirmity in conduct of departmental inquiry as well as in the order inflicting punishment by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. In normal course this Court used to adopt the Course of remitting the matter back for enquiry afresh from the stage of infirmity but having regard to the fact that the original petitioner died on 27.04.2019 and now the widow is before this Court, the Court is not inclined to remit the matter back for fresh enquiry.

¶44

Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this Court, when the Court is of the view that the order contained in Annexure-10 (order of the disciplinary authority) and the order contained in Annexure-11 passed by the Appellate Authority is unsustainable, it is accordingly, quashed. The respondents are directed to calculate the entitlement of death-cum-retiral benefits of this petitioner by revising the entitlement of the

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.9120 of 2016(4) dt.16-10-2019 6/6

¶46

original petitioner on quashing of Annexure-10 and 11 by adding one increment as if Annexure-10 and 11 never existed and extend the follow up benefit to this petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶47

With the aforesaid, the present writ application stands disposed of.

¶48

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶49

mdrashid/-

¶50

Ravindra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shayamadeo Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Kamlesh Roy Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Benkatesh Kumar @ Bankatesh Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satendra Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar