Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1249

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDU MALHOTRA, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Hari Niwas Gupta – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3105 of 2017
Komal Ram and Jitendra Nath Singh – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3106-3107 of 2017
Decided On : 08-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Asha Gopalan Nair, Chandra Prakash, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Devashish Bharuka, Ravi Bharuka, Sarvshree, Justine George, P.H. Parekh, Tanya Choudhary, Nikhil R., Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Nitika Pandey, for M/S. Parekh & Co., Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Authorities to invoke power under clause (b) to second proviso of Article 311(2) of Constitution of India to dispense with departmental inquiry must record a finding that such an inquiry cannot be conducted and record specific reasons for the same.

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 311(2) read with Rules 14 and 20 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Dismissal of Judicial officers for indulging in immoral activity – Dispensing with disciplinary proceedings in terms of Full Court resolution of High Court – Order reversed by Division Bench of High Court primarily on the ground that Full Court had contravened clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution by not recording reasons for dispensing with disciplinary inquiry at the time of recommending dismissal of judicial officers – Authorities to invoke power under clause (b) to second proviso of Article 311(2) to dispense with departmental inquiry must record a finding that such an inquiry cannot be conducted and record specific reasons for the same – Division Bench vide impugned judgment has as a fact found that High Court had failed to record satisfaction in writing for dispensing with an inquiry before arriving at its decision to dismiss judicial officers – For this reason, order of dismissal passed by Governor of State of Bihar under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) was quashed and set aside – Consequently, judicial officers were to be reinstated in service – High Court was entitled, if it deemed it appropriate and proper, to invoke power under clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution at an appropriate stage, after recording reasons and following prescribed procedure – Expression ‘at appropriate stage’ used by Division Bench is not a direction for initiation of a regular departmental inquiry nor does it prohibit recourse to clause (b) to second proviso of Article 311(2) of Constitution in accordance with law – Appeal dismissed and stay order vacated. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Division Bench vide impugned judgment has as a fact found that High Court had failed to record satisfaction in writing for dispensing with an inquiry before arriving at its decision to dismiss judicial officers. For this reason, order of dismissal dated 12th February 2014 passed by Governor of the State of Bihar under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) was quashed and set aside. Consequently, judicial officers were to be reinstated in service.
Findings of Court:
Full Court had subsequently again recommended dismissal of judicial officers dispensing with departmental inquiry in exercise of power under clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution vide recommendation dated 13th August 2015. However, matter is pending with State Government. Judicial officers had retired during pendency of present appeals. At best pensionary and retirement benefits can be forfeited and denied, but an order of dismissal from service by invoking powers under clause(b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) cannot be passed against appellants - judicial officers.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. This common judgment would dispose of the above-captioned appeals preferred by three judicial officers namely, Hari Niwas Gupta, Komal Ram and Jitendra Nath Singh, who were working as Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria; and ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Araria, respectively.

2. On 29th January 2013, a news item was published in a local daily (Udghosh), that on 26th January 2013 the Nepal Police had apprehended three judicial officers belonging to the State of Bihar as they were allegedly found in a compromising position with three Nepali women in a guest house at Biratnagar, Nepal. Thereupon the judicial officers were brought to the district police station in Nepal, but were released on account of pressure from various circles. On learning about the incident, the High Court of Judicature at Patna (‘High Court’ for short) had addressed the letter dated 18th February 2013 to the District and Sessions Judge, Purnea to submit a report in the matter. The District and Sessions Judge vide report dated 24th February 2013 had informed that during the inquiry the three judicial officers had denied having left India for Nepal. Komal Ram had claimed that he was in Purnea, and in the process of vacating his quarters on transfer. The report had made reference to another news item published by the same daily on 22nd February 2013, expressing regret over erroneous reportage and that the Superintendent of Police, Araria appeared to have held a bias against the judicial officers. After receipt of the report, the High Court had addressed a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to collect and ascertain information, details and records. By communication dated 20th June 2013, the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had informed the High Court that the mobile phones of the judicial officers were simultaneously switched off for a long time on 26th and 27th January 2013 and when the phones were active during that period, they were within the range of the tower at Forbesganj town, which indicated that the judicial officers were together in proximity to Nepal, and not at the place of their posting. The hotel bill submitted and relied upon by Komal Ram to support his claim that he was staying at a hotel in Purnea between 26th and 27th January 2013 was considered to be fabricated based on the handwriting and Komal Ram’s signature on the bill. Further, the hotel was not of the standard where a judicial officer of Komal Ram’s rank would have stayed.

3. The Standing Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 5th February, 2014 had resolved that the judicial officers should be placed under suspension and also that they should be dismissed from service without an inquiry in exercise of power under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, read-with Rules 14 and 20 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. At the Full Court of the judges of the High Court held on 10th February, 2014, the recommendation of the Standing Committee was accepted and Full Court resolution was passed for dismissal of the judicial officers from judicial service in the State Government of Bihar, dispensing with the disciplinary proceedings by invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The recommendations of the Full Court was accepted by the State Government and vide common order dated 12th February 2014 issued by the Governor of the State of Bihar the judicial officers were dismissed from service.

4. The judicial officers had challenged the dismissal order by filing separate writ petitions, which were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court (‘Division Bench’ for short), vide judgment dated 19th May 2015, primarily on the ground that the Full Court had contravened clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 1249

IMPORTANT POINTAuthorities to invoke power under clause (b) to second proviso of Article 311(2) of Constitution of India to dispense with departmental inquiry must record a finding that such an inquiry cannot be conducted and record specific reasons for the same.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
Authorities to invoke power under clause (b) to second proviso of Article 311(2) of Constitution of India to dispense with departmental inquiry must record a finding that such an inquiry cannot be conducted and record specific reasons for the same.