Surya Bansh Pal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Surya Bansh Pal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's services as Gramin Awas Sahayak — terminated by the District Magistrate, Rohtas' order dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure-10) and affirmed by the Secretary, Department of Rural Development's order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure-13) — should be set aside. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The judgment relied upon by the petitioner (Mukti Nath Rai v. Punjab National Bank, 2023(1) PLJR 824) does not help him: for the same charge, different delinquents had been punished differently (an observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench therein, on whose para 7 ground that case was dismissed), and that case concerns a regular employee whereas the petitioner is a contractual employee, so the two cannot be equated.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is not a regular employee but a contractual employee; hence the principles applicable to regular employees cannot be applied in his case.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.), oral judgment dated 30-01-2024, CWJC No.5949 of 2019 (Surya Bansh Pal v. State of Bihar & others). Petitioner, a contractual 'Gramin Awas Sahayak' under the Indira Awas scheme (appointed 01.12.2014; paid Rs.15,000/- p.m.), sought setting aside of the District Magistrate, Rohtas' termination order dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure-10) and the Secretary, Rural Development's affirming order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure-13). Dismissal originated in Memo No.484 dated 05.03.2016 over alleged taking of Rs.1500/- from beneficiary Anju Devi (returned next day) under the scheme, with FIR Nasriganj P.S. Case No.36/2016; an earlier appeal had been set aside on 02.08.2016 with remand; the DM (Case No.3/2016) reiterated termination on 25.04.2017; the appellate reasoned and speaking order dated 08.01.2019 found the money transaction contrary to a public servant's conduct and rejected the appeal. Pressing his subsequent acquittal dated 17.02.2020, petitioner sought review of the punishment relying on Mukti Nath Rai v. Punjab National Bank, 2023(1) PLJR 824; the Court held that precedent does not assist — it concerns a regular employee whereas petitioner is contractual (principles of regular employees inapplicable to contractual employees), and therein different delinquents for the same charge had been punished differently (Division Bench observation). WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5949 of 2019

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

Surya Bansh Pal, Son of Motilal @ Motilal Pal Resident of Village-Darihat, P.S.-Darihat, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, District-Rohtas.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas.

The Block Development Officer, Akodhi Gola, District-Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sriram Krishna (AC to SC-11) ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 30-01-2024

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

The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2019 annexed as Annexure-13 issued under the signature of Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) as well as order dated 25.04.2017 annexed as Annexure-10 issued by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (respondent no.3) by which the services of the petitioner as Gramin Awas Sahayak was terminated and affirmed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5949 of 2019 dt.30-01-2024 2/6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the said order dated 25.04.2017, the petitioner was terminated without considering the defence of the petitioner properly. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Gramin Awas Sahayak in Akodhi Gola Anchal, DistrictRohtas (Bihar) on contractual basis under the scheme of Indira Awas on 01.12.2014. Counsel further submits that on the basis of the said advertisement, he was started working after selection vide letter no.741 dated 25.02.2014 annexed as Annexure-2. Counsel submits that the petitioner joined on the said post and started discharging duty of Indira Awas Sahayak in Akodhi Gola Block on the payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Memo No. 484 dated 05.03.2016 annexed as Annexure-6, he was dismissed from the service on the basis of complaint followed by explanation filed by him. The petitioner filed representation against his dismissal that violation of natural justice has been made and thereafter, a criminal case was also filed against him bearing Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 36/2016 dated 20.02.2016 annexed as Annexure-8. Counsel further submits that against his order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred appeal and subsequently, preferred writ petition in which vide order dated 05.03.2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8210

Patna High Court CWJC No.5949 of 2019 dt.30-01-2024 3/6

of 2016, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority and his matter was remitted back. The Secretary Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna in the light of the observations passed in writ petition has passed final order in which he confirmed the earlier order of dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Gramin Awas Sahayak vide order dated 25.04.2017. Counsel also submits that after the said order passed on 08.01.2019 which is under challenge, the order of acquittal dated 17.02.2020 has been passed in the criminal case which is annexed as Annexure15.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the punishment order may be directed to be reviewed as in the said criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted. In support of his argument, counsel relied on a judgment of Mukti Nath Rai Vs. The Punjab National Bank through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Ors. reported in 2023(1) PLJR 824 . Counsel relied on the observations made in paragraph no.7 of the said judgment that:-

“under what circumstances acquittal in a criminal case is bearing in a departmental proceedings.”

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand

Patna High Court CWJC No.5949 of 2019 dt.30-01-2024 4/6

submits that the petitioner is a contractual employee and not a regular employee whereas, the said case on which the petitioner is relying is basically a case of regular employee and case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the said case.

In the light of the submissions made, it transpires to this Court that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8210 of 2016 challenging the termination order of the petitioner issued vide Memo No. 484 dated 05.03.2016 before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, namely, Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna has set aside the order vide order dated 02.08.2016 and after allowing the same, the matter was remanded back. After remand, the District Magistrate, Rohtas in Case No. 3/2016 vide order dated 25.04.2017 has reiterated the earlier order dated 05.03.2016, thereby the petitioner having been terminated from discharging the duty of Indira Awas Assistant and which has been challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

This Hon’ble Court has directed the Appellate Authority to examine the case of the petitioner and decide the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. It has also been observed that the Court is not

Patna High Court CWJC No.5949 of 2019 dt.30-01-2024 5/6

giving any opinion on the merit of the case. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.01.2019 passed a reasoned and speaking order. In the said reasoned and speaking order, it has been passed that:-

" कागजातोकेअवलोकनएवंदोनोपकोको सुननेसेसपषटहोताहैककइंकदराआवासयोजनाके अनतगरतलाभदेनेहेतु Jh सूयरवंशपालदारालाभुक अंजुदेवीसे 1500/-र०कलयागया, कजसकीजानकारी iz ” kklu को izkIr होनेपरदूसरेकदन Jh पालनेवापसकर कदया।इंकदराआवासयोजनाअनतगरतलाभदेनेकेकलए लाभुकसेपैसेकालेन-देनलोकसेवककेआचरणके कवपरीतहै।अनुबंधरदकरनेसंबंधीआदेशकदनांक 25.07.2017 केअवलोकनसेयहभीसपषटहोताहैकक कजलापदाकधकारी, रोहतास (सासाराम) दाराआरोकपत Jh पालकोअपनापकरखनेहेतुअवसरदेतेहुए iz[kaM कवकासपदाकधकारी, अकोढीगोलाकीअनुशंसातथा उपकवकासआयुकत, रोहताससे izkIr मंतवयकेआलोक मेसुनवाईकेपशचातयुककतयुकतआदेशपाकरतककया गयाहै।

अतःउपरोकततथयोकेआलोकमे Jh सूयरवंशपालकायहअपीलआवेदनअसवीकृतककया जाताहै। इसआदेशकी izfr सभीसंबंकधतोकोभेजी जाए।"

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is true that after passing the said order, the order of

Patna High Court CWJC No.5949 of 2019 dt.30-01-2024 6/6

acquittal dated 17.02.2020 has been passed in which the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge made in the FIR.

It transpires from the judgment of Mukti Nath Rai Vs. The Punjab National Bank through its Chairmancum-Managing Director & Ors. reported in 2023(1) PLJR 824, that the said judgment shall not help the petitioner due to the reason that for the same charge, different delinquents have been punished differently. It was the observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench firstly and then on the ground mentioned in paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Court has dismissed, this case.

It transpires to this Court clearly that the petitioner is not the regular employee rather, he is a contractual employee and the principles of regular employee cannot applied in case of the contractual employee.

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no case of the petitioner and hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Divyansh/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	02/02/2024
Transmission Date

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Termination of petitioner's services as Gramin Awas Sahayak: order dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure-10) issued by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (respondent no.3), and the order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure-13) issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2), by which the termination was affirmed; both sought to be set aside.¶19
Secretary/Appellate Authority, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna (underlying termination order by District Magistrate, Rohtas) · 08.01.2019
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed as Gramin Awas Sahayak in Akodhi Gola Anchal, District Rohtas, on contractual basis under the Indira Awas scheme on 01.12.2014; working began after selection vide letter no.741 dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure-2); duty discharged as Indira Awas Sahayak, Akodhi Gola Block, at Rs. 15,000/- per month.¶21
Prior proceeding
Dismissal from service vide Memo No.484 dated 05.03.2016 (Annexure-6) on the basis of a complaint, after petitioner's explanation; petitioner filed a representation alleging violation of natural justice.¶22
Prior proceeding
A criminal case was filed against petitioner — Nasriganj P.S. Case No.36/2016 dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure-8).¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had earlier moved this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8210 of 2016 challenging the termination issued vide Memo No.484 dated 05.03.2016; he was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority and the matter was remitted back (order recorded as dated 05.03.2016).¶30
Prior proceeding
The Appellate Authority, namely the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna, set aside the dismissal order vide order dated 02.08.2016 and, after allowing the same, remanded the matter back.¶30
Prior proceeding
After remand, the District Magistrate, Rohtas, in Case No.3/2016, vide order dated 25.04.2017, reiterated the earlier order dated 05.03.2016, whereby the petitioner was terminated from discharging the duty of Indira Awas Assistant; this was again challenged before the Appellate Authority.¶30
Prior proceeding
At the earlier stage this Court directed the Appellate Authority to examine the petitioner's case and decide it by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 3 months, expressly observing that it was not giving any opinion on the merits.¶31
Prior proceeding
Substance of the Appellate Authority's reasoned and speaking order dated 08.01.2019: under the Indira Awas Yojana petitioner Surya Bansh Pal had taken Rs.1500/- from beneficiary Anju Devi, which he returned the next day; taking money from a beneficiary to grant benefit under the scheme is contrary to the conduct expected of a lok sevak (public servant); the District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram), having levelled the charge, gave petitioner an opportunity regarding his post; the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Akodhi Gola, the views received from the Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas, and observations of the contract-cancellation order dated 25.07.2017 (as printed in the Hindi text) were considered, and a reasoned order was passed after hearing both sides.¶34
Prior proceeding
Conclusion of the Appellate Authority's reasoned order dated 08.01.2019: petitioner Surya Bansh Pal's appeal application was rejected (asvikrit kiya jata hai).¶35
Prior proceeding
After the appellate order of 08.01.2019 (the order under challenge), an order of acquittal dated 17.02.2020 was passed in the criminal case, exonerating the petitioner from the charge made in the FIR (Annexure-15); counsel accordingly urged that the punishment order be reviewed.¶38