Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2629 of 2020

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

Krishna Kumar, Son of Late Gorakh Mahto, resident of Ward No. 41, Sardar Patel Lane, Chaudhary Compound, Rambag, P.S.- Mithanpura, DistrictMuzaffarpur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Principal Secrtary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

¶10

The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Muzaffarpur.

¶11

The Conducting Officer-cum-Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur.

¶12

The District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Teerthankar, Advocate Mr. Prashant Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar, AC to AAG-3 ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶17

5 02-12-2024

¶18

The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition,

¶19

praying for following reliefs:-

¶20

“That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order as contained in memo no. 81, dated 21.01.2019 issued under the signature of District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, whereby and whereunder altogether three punishment have been imposed upon the Petitioner in departmental proceeding and further for quashing the subsequent appellate order, dated

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2024 2/8

¶22

20.08.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 34/2019 by which he was pleased to reject the appeal on erroneous grounds and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to make payment of full salary for the suspension period and other consequential benefits for which Petitioner is legally entitled and further of issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order or direction it may be deemed fit and proper.”

¶23

It is the case of the Petitioner that on the basis of a

¶24

complaint submitted by one Smt. Sindhu Sinha, who was working as a Clerk in the office of District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur to the effect that on 24.09.2010, the non-gazetted employees of the said office was observing strike over certain issue. When Smt. Sinha was working in her office, at about 12:30 P.M., 10 to 15 persons being the supporters of the strike, entered into the office and abused the members of the staff including Smt. Sinha in filthy language. When one Mahibir Singh, the Head Clerk of the office tried to pacify the situation those persons assaulted Mahibir Singh and Smt. Sinha. The Petitioner was the leader of the association and he led the demonstration. On the basis of the said complaint Town P. S.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2024 3/8

¶26

384 of 2010 was registered against the Petitioners and others under Sections 143/ 323/ 353/ 354/ 504 and 188 of the IPC. After initiation of criminal case, the Petitioner and other employees were put under suspension vide order dated 25.09.2010. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur passed an order directing initiation of departmental proceeding by formulation of memorandum of charge and appointment of presenting an enquiry officer. As the said enquiry was not completed even after five months of the initiation, the Petitioner moved before the District Magistrate for expeditiously adjudication of the departmental proceeding. On being instructed by the District Magistrate, the enquiry officer without examining any witness submitted his report and hold the Petitioner/delinquent guilty for failure to express pardon. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Petitioner suffered minor punishment in the form of stoppage of one increment with noncumulative effect, non payment of balance amount of salary except the subsistence allowance during suspension and warning.

¶27

Learned advocate on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious and bad for non-observance of rules 17 of the Bihar Government

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2024 4/8

¶29

Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the enquiry officer did not even examine the complainant or any other members of staff who were allegedly obstructed and assaulted by the striking employees on the alleged dated of occurrence.

¶31

The learned advocate on behalf of the State, on the other hand, draws my attention to page-60 of the writ petition which is the order of punishment passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. In the penultimate paragraph of his order, he recorded as hereunder:-

¶32

^^Jh कृषण dqekj ds fo:) xfBr vkjksiksa] lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dk tkap izfrosnu ,oa Jh dqekj] fyfid }kjk izLrr dkj.k iPNk dh lE;~d iM+rky dh x;hA Jh dqekj] fyfid us viuh lQkbZ esa vafdr fd;k gS fd ftyk izksxzke dk;kZy; dh fyfid Jherh flU/kq flUgk ds lkFk mUgksaus xkyh&xykSt ,oa vHknz O;ogkj ugh fd;kA lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds le{k Jherh flUgk] fyfid us LvsVesaV eq>s ,slk yxk fd mlesa Jh d`’.k dqekj Fks dks <ky cuk;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd os izksxzke dk;kZy; esa x;s gh ughA ijUrq ;g rdZ fo”oluh; ugha yxrk D;ksafd nksuks lekgj.kky; esa gh fofHkUu iz”kk[kkvksa esa o’kksZa ls inLFkkfir gSA ,d nwljs dks u igpkuus dk iz”u ugha mBrkA fQj “kd ds vk/kkj ij Fkkuk esa uketn izkFkfedh ntZ ugha djk;h tk ldrhA ;g laHko gS fd vc Jherh flU/kq flUgk dks f”kdk;r u gks] ij izkFkfedh vdkj.k ntZ ugha djk;h x;h gSA ?kVuk esa lPpkbZ gS vkSj mlesa Jh dqekj] fyfid lafyIr jgs g S A^^

¶33

I have heard the learned counsels for the Petitioner and the State. I have also carefully perused the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2024 5/8

¶35

submitted on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶36

It appears from the impugned order, the relevant portion of which is quoted above, that the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur passed his order on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is not in dispute that the enquiry officer did not examine any witness during departmental enquiry. The impugned order of punishment is a case of no evidence.

¶37

In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. , reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 17, recorded an observation made in Moni Shankar v. Union of India , reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484 , which runs as under:-

¶38

“17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2024 6/8

¶40

own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.”

¶41

Finally, in Roop Singh Negi (supra), it is held by

¶42

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 23 as under: -

¶43

“23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2024 7/8

¶45

principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.”

¶46

It would not be out of place to mention here that on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Sinah, a criminal case was instituted against the Petitioner. However, in the said case, the Petitioner was acquitted on the basis of the compromise, meaning thereby, the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution did not wish to adduce evidence against the Petitioner.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court can very well rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. , reported in AIR 1999 SC1416 , holding that the Petitioner was acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the findings that raid and recovery at the residence of the Petitioner was not proved, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand.

¶48

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not

¶49

Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2020(5) dt.02-12-2024 8/8

¶50

have any other alternative but to hold that the order of punishment imposed in the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.01.2019 and 20.08.2019, passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur and the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, respectively are set aside and quashed. The Petitioner is entitled to get the arrears of balance amount of subsistence allowance which was declined during the period of suspension. All other punishments are set-aside.

¶51

The instant writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶52

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶53

Harshita/-

¶54

U

Krishna Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Shukla Vs The State of Bihar through Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, Hajipur

Union of India through Secretary Department of Home Vs Braj Bhuwan Singh, S/O Hari Singh

Prem Prasad @ Prem Prasad Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Chiranjib Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar