Allowed

Baban Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC12 Jul 2022CWJC/15792/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order withholding the petitioner's full pension. The court held that findings of guilt based solely on an arrest report and criminal investigation documents were illegal. It found the Enquiry Officer violated procedural rules by ignoring the petitioner's defense and failing to bring home the charge of illegal gratification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01-03-2016 is quashed, and the petitioner shall be paid consequential benefits within eight weeks.

Baban Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15792 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

Baban Singh S/o Late Ram Raj Singh, Resident of Village -P.O.-Bellhari, P.S.-Sikranlakh District- Buxar

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The principal Secretary, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Director in Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Deputy Director, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar -cum- State Programme Officer (Filaria), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Asstt. Director, Health Services (Filaria), Swasth Bhavan, Patna-6

¶11

... ... Respondents

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Nagendra Pd. Yadav- SC 23 with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh AC to SC-23

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 12-07-2022

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶17

The petitioner has been visited with the punishment purported to have been passed under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules withholding the petitioner’s full pension. The order is dated 01-03-2016. The punishment has been passed after considering the petitioner’s second show cause, pursuant to the Enquiry Report dated 30-01-2015, wherein, the charge against the petitioner has been found to be proved. The charges arise out of the petitioner’s arrest while accepting Rs. 20,000/alleged illegal gratification. It is alleged that the petitioner has

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.15792 of 2016 dt.12-07-2022 2/6

¶19

kept a proposal of compassionate appointment pending while he was working as Filaria Inspector. The petitioner’s response to the charge memo and stand before the Enquiry Officer based on the petitioner’s written statement of defence Annexure-6 is that the file was placed before him on 29-01-2011. The petitioner noticed that established procedure required placing of the proposal for compassionate appointment before the Department. The file was,thus, not ready for being processed since the same had not been forwarded to the Assistant Director in the Department. In his written statement, he has stated that this lacunae in the procedure adopted for compassionate appointment in question was brought to the notice of the District Authorities and the Assistant Director, as early as on 24-022011 and 26-02-2011 respectively. He has thus stated that he was not responsible for keeping the matter pending and since he had already informed the authorities about the lacunae in the proposal for compassionate appointment. The entire basis for the prosecution case in the criminal trial that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification for processing the same is inherently improbable.

¶20

This court must take notice of the admitted position today that the trial is still pending. There is no finding of the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.15792 of 2016 dt.12-07-2022 3/6

¶22

guilt in the criminal trial pending against the petitioner arising out of Vigilance PS Case No. 1040 of 2011.This Court would further observe that irrespective of the veracity of the petitioner’s defence, the same was at least required to be considered or looked into by the Enquiry officer. The Enquiry officer in the report dated 30-01-2015 has merely taken note of the petitioner’s defence with a legally unsustainable preconceived notion that the petitioner has to produce evidence to establish that he had not taken any illegal gratification:

¶23

“ vkjksfir dehZ lwpd ds }kjk lefiZr cpko c;ku ds leh{kksijkUr ;g rF; lkeus vk;k gS fd vkjksfir dehZ } kjk fj”or dh ekax ls budkj fd;k gSA budk dguk gS fd i=kad 602] fnukad 16-11-2010 }kjk mudh izfrfu;qfDr fyfidh; dk;Z gsrq lgk;d funs”kd] LokLF; lsok ¼Qk0fu0½ fcgkj ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k x;kA ftlds vuqikyu esa buds }kjk fnukad 21-11-2012 dks vius izfrfu;qfDr LFkku ij ;ksxnku fn;k x;kA iqu% lgk;d funs”kd QkbZysfj;k ds i=kad 396] fnukad 04-06-2011 ls budk LFkkukUrj.k Qk0fu0bZ0 nkukiqj ls Qk0fu0bZ0 iVuk e/; fDyfud dj fn;k x;kA ftlds vuqikyu esa i=kad 172 fnukad 24-062011 }kjk bUgsa fojfer dj fn;k x;kA budk dguk gS fd tc bUgsa LFkkukarfjr dj fn;k x;k rks budh izfrfu;qfDr Lor% lekIr gks x;hA ;s flQZ 21-11-2010 ls 26-06-2011 rd jgsa fyfidh; izHkkj gsrq ftEesokj gSA blds vykok vkjkfir dehs }kjk viuZ cpko c;ku es ,sa lk dks bs BkZ ls lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k fd ftlla ;g Li’V gks fd buds }s kjk fj”or dh ekx ugha dh x;hA a cfYd buds }kjk vuxZy izyki ds }kjk rF;ksa ls /;ku HkVdkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA lwpd ds }kjk lefiZr cpko c;ku esa fj”or ysus dk mYys[k gS ¼i`0 153&135@i0½A ”

¶24

Apparently, the Enquiry Officer, instead of considering

¶25

petitioner's defence, has cast the onus of proving innocence upon the delinquent; rather than requiring the Department to

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.15792 of 2016 dt.12-07-2022 4/6

¶27

bring home the charges. Neither any witness, nor documentary evidence has been referred to or relied upon in support of the charges for holding the charges to be proved. There is clear and apparent violation of Rules 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Control, Classification & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for brevity ‘CCA Rules, 2005’) in the conclusion of the Enquiry officer dated 30-01-2015. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer which are recorded under the head Samiksha reads as follows:-

¶28

“ vkjksfir dehZ ds }kjk lefiZr lk{; ,oa cpko c;ku rFkk lwpd ds }kjk lefiZr lk{;ksa ,oa c;ku ds leh{kksijkUr ;g rF; mHkjdj lkeus vk;k gS fd buds }kjk fj”or dh jde :i;k 45000@& dh ekax dh x;h vkSj chl gtkj esa lkSnk r; gksus ds ckn bldk lR;kiu Jh fnus”k frokjh l0v0fu0 fuxjkuh }kjk djk;k x;k rRi”pkr fuxjkuh foHkkx }kjk fnukad 29-06-2011 dks ?kkok ny dk xBu fd;k x;k ,oa fnukad 30-06-2011 dks vkjksfir dehZ dks jax gkFk fj”or ds iSlksa ds lkFk fuxjkuh foHkkx ds /kkok ny }kjk idM+k x;k ,oa bUgsa tsy Hkstk x;kA lkFk gh buds LkkFk dk;Zjr dehZ ds }kjk Hkh dksbZ Bksl rF; buds i{k esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k ftlls dh izekf.kr gks fd buds }kjk fj”or dh ekax ugha dh x;h gSA fofnr gks fd vjksfir dehZ ds ikl ls fj”or dh jde cjken gqbZ ,oa ;s tsy Hksts x;sA ekeyk vHkh rd U;k;ky; esa py jgk gSA vr,o izFke n`’V;k vkjksfir dehZ ij xfBr vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA ysfdu ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds QykQy ls vkjksi izHkkfor gksxkA ”

¶29

The findings of the Enquiry officer are clearly based on an overwhelming notion of the petitioner being guilty based on petitioner’s arrest, and the documents forming part of the criminal investigation against the petitioner which, per se cannot be made the basis of concluding guilt in the enquiry

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.15792 of 2016 dt.12-07-2022 5/6

¶31

which is now settled by decision of the Apex Court in case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others reported in ( 2009) 2 SCC 570 .

¶32

The said findings based on the document forming part of the criminal investigation, which are yet to be considered at the trial, has thus been illegaly accepted by the disciplinary authority as being proof of petitioner’s guilt in the Departmental enquiry, under the impugned order dated 01-03-2016.

¶33

The disciplinary authority has also not considered the petitioner’s response to the second show cause and has proceeded to record finding of guilt on basis of the documents forming part of the criminal investigation. The order in the first paragraph records all that transpired with reference to dates in the enquiry; in the second paragraph the disciplinary authority has taken note of the action taken against the petitioner in the Vigilance Case, pending in the criminal court, and referring to the same without considering the petitioner’s defence at all; or the second show cause filed by the petitioner, the severe punishment of withholding of full pension has been passed against the petitioner.

¶34

Such non-consideration of the petitioner’s second show cause is clearly untenable in the eyes of law.

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.15792 of 2016 dt.12-07-2022 6/6

¶36

The findings in the enquiry which has led to issuance of the impugned order dated 01-3-2016 are baseless as also contrary to the established procedure under the CCA Rules,2005 which has been considered above. The same is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed.

¶37

As a result of quashing of the impugned order dated 01-03-2016 passed by the Director in Chief, Health Services, Govt of Bihar (Respondent No.3), the petitioner shall be paid his consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶38

The writ application is allowed.

¶39

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶40

shyambihari/-

¶41

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	26-07-2022
Transmission Date

Baban Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarun Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Babita @ Smt. Babita @ Smt. Babita Kumari @ Babita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Ramesh Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hargun Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vivek Ray Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar