Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Panchanand Kumar
Versus
Bihar State Electricity Board
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12862 of 1993 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 30, 1996
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - RULE 166 OF THE BOARDS MISCELLANEOUS RULES - ENQUIRY OFFICER ACTING AS PRESENTING OFFICER - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DISMISSAL ORDER QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Bhagalpur Area Electricity Board, was dismissed from service following a disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order on the grounds that the enquiry was vitiated due to the enquiry officer acting as the presenting officer, that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and that the enquiry report contained a document dated after the conclusion of the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry was vitiated as the enquiry officer had acted as the presenting officer, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that the enquiry report contained a document dated after the conclusion of the enquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the enquiry was vitiated due to the enquiry officer acting as the presenting officer? 2. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses? 3. Whether the enquiry report contained a document dated after the conclusion of the enquiry?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enquiry was vitiated as the enquiry officer had acted as the presenting officer, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that the enquiry report contained a document dated after the conclusion of the enquiry. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in D. K. Yadav V/s. J. M. A. Industries Limited and Union of India V/s. H. C. Goel to support its findings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the enquiry report, the order of dismissal from service, and the order passed by the appellate authority. The court directed the petitioner's reinstatement within seven days and the payment of back wages within two months. The court also allowed the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law, to be concluded within eight months.
A. K. Ganguly, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against a disciplinary enquiry held against the petitioner on certain charges, Ultimately pursuant to such charges, an enquiry was held against the petitioner and the enquiry report was submitted. On the basis of the said enquiry report an order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner by the respondents on 7th October, 1993. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of dismissal was also dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 22nd november, 1993.
2. Challenging both the orders of dismissal passed by the original authority and the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing this writ-petition.
3. In assailing the said disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner has raised various grounds which are stated below: even though an enquiry Officer was appointed by the respondents by an order dated 19th July, 1991 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bhagalpur Area Electricity board, Bhagalpur (respondent No.3)but no Officer appeared before the Enquiry Officer to present the case of the department.
4. From a. perusal of Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit it appears that one Sri R. N. Rai, Deputy Director of personnel, Bhagalpur Area Electricity board, Bhagalpur was appointed to present the case of the Department before the Enquiry Officer but from the report of the Enquiry Officer it appears that there is no reference to the said presenting officer and it was also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents authorities that, in fact, no presenting officer did appear to present the case of the disciplinary authority in the said disciplinary proceeding. Relying on these facts learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer has himself presented the case on behalf of the departmental authority and, therefore, he has disabled himself from functioning as an impartial enquiry officer and the enquiry proceeding is vitiated totally.
5. The next ground of attack is that during the course of enquiry proceeding the petitioner was not given any opportunity of cross examining any witness presented on behalf of the departmental authority. The petitioners further grievance is that contrary to all procedures, he was first examined by the enquiry officer and thereafter one Sri G. G. Bandopadhaya was produced as a witness but the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the said witness. The petitioners positive case is that no other witness was produced on behalf of the department nor any other document was produced by the department in course of the said departmental proceeding.
6. The next ground of attack to the instant enquiry proceeding is that the enquiry was held only on one date, i. e. on 25th January, 1992 but the enquiry report shows that the document of a subsequent date, namely, dated 14th February, 1992 was made enclosure No. IV to the said enquiry report. Relying on this fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer has collected documents and evidence after the conclusion of the enquiry without giving the petitioners any opportunity to controvert the materials thus produced behind his back and which formed part of the enquiry report. Relying on the aforesaid infirmities in the enquiry proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire enquiry was totally a farce and the enquiry procedure has been completely vitiated. As such the dismissal order passed on such enquiry report is also vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the appellate authority while passing its order has also failed to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has not disclosed any reason in support of the order passed by such authority.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has sought to support the enquiry proceeding by saying that even though no presenting officer was there to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
