A panchayat employee challenged his dismissal from service and the appellate order confirming it, arguing the charge memo was never served so the disciplinary proceeding violated natural justice. The State pointed to show-cause replies containing no such complaint. The court found detailed reasoned orders below and dismissed the writ petition.
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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2360 of 2018
======================================================
Lalji Singh Son of Late Dukhi Singh, Resident of Village- Medh, P.O.- Sirsi, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7 Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, AC to SC-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2360 of 2018 dt.02-01-2024 2/3
that in compliance of order dated 22.11.2023 a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the State which he has already received. Counsel for the petitioner consistently relied on his one pleading that memo of article of charge has not been served upon him and without said memo of charge the entire departmental proceeding has proceeded and, as such, the said departmental proceeding is in gross violation of natural justice and, therefore, the entire process are bad-in-law. Counsel further submits that in the original order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as in the appellate order passed by the Commissioner this aspect has not been considered. Counsel submits that for the first time this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 has pleased to acknowledge the argument of the petitioner and directed the State to serve document, by which it transpires that article of charge has been actually served upon the petitioner. In this regard, the counter affidavit has been filed. But in the said counter affidavit, the proof of service of article of charge has not been annexed. Therefore, he submits that his argument is very clear that the copy of article of charge has not been served upon him and, hence, the entire original order as well as appellate order be set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2360 of 2018 dt.02-01-2024 3/3
hand, submits that the copy of article of charge has been served upon the petitioner. He relied upon Annexure-U as well as Annexure-7 of the writ petition, in which the reply has been filed in the form of show-cause on the point of memo of charge. In these two annexures, there is no whisper made by the petitioner that he has not been served the charge memo. This point has not been taken either in Annexure-7 or in AnnexureU. As such, the only point on which the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Court that charge memo has not been served is not appears to be correct.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 04.01.2024 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim that the article of charge memo was never served invalidates the departmental proceeding and punishment order?
Lalji Singh
The State Of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Director Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna
The Divisional Commissioner, Patna
The District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabhua
Anshuman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
