Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Jyoti Saran, J.
Ajay Kumar Singh - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
CWJC No. 1044 of 2015
Decided On : 14-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Raju Giri, Santosh Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Shashi Shekhar Tiwari
Disciplinary proceedings require evidence to support charges, and the burden of proof lies with the disciplinary authority.
Headnote:
certiorari - quashing of notification - Road Construction Department - [Section 4418, Section 25, Section 29] - The court discussed the charges against the petitioner, including ensuring security, inspection discrepancies, and attempted defalcation. The court analyzed the evidence presented and the legal principles regarding disciplinary proceedings. It emphasized the need for evidence to support charges and highlighted the burden of proof on the disciplinary authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a notification reverting them to basic scale and rejecting their review application based on charges related to security arrangements, inspection discrepancies, and attempted defalcation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges lacked evidence to connect the petitioner and emphasized the need for evidence to support disciplinary proceedings. It criticized the disciplinary authority for endorsing the opinion without proper discussion of evidence or consideration of the petitioner's defense.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges and the duty of the disciplinary authority to thoroughly consider the evidence and the defense presented by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for evidence to support disciplinary charges and highlighted the burden of proof on the disciplinary authority. It criticized the mechanical endorsement of the opinion without proper consideration of evidence and the petitioner's defense.
Final Decision: The punishment order and the review order were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with consequential reliefs.
Jyoti Saran, J.
1. Heard Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, AC to AAG-15, for the State. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification bearing Memo No. 8176 dated 27.8.2014 of the State Government in its Road Construction Department, whereby the petitioner has been reverted permanently to basic scale. A copy of the notification is impugned at Annexure-35 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an application for review and which also has been rejected vide notification dated 24.11.2014 impugned at Annexure-37.
3. The charge-sheet, which is the foundation for the proceeding in question, is impugned at Annexure-25 and four charges have been set up against the petitioner for drawing the proceedings, who holds the post of an Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the Road Construction Department of the State Government.
4. Charge No. 1 charges the petitioner of making arrangement for ensuring security of the seized machineries of M/s. Tantia Construction Company by the Chaukidars appointed on daily wages. According to the charge the petitioner should have acted in the light of the directions issued by the Superintending Engineer, Kendriya Nirupan Anchal, Road Construction Department, bearing letter No. 4418 dated 4.12.2008.
5. Charge No. 2 alleges that on inspection done by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) along with his Secretary on 26.3.2011 to inspect the security of the seized goods, the Chaukidars on duty did not match the names given by the petitioner, rather the person present there, a retired Captain B.P. Singh informed that the security work is being done by the Guards appointed by M/s. Tantia Construction themselves and who are also making their payment. On query, one of the Chaukidars gave his name as Arjun Singh but according to the list given by the petitioner it is Deepu Kumar and Bhrigunath who should have been on duty. It is further the allegation that on 29.3.2011 as well, none of the Chaukidars present match the list given by the petitioner.
6. Charge No. 3 charges the petitioner of attempted defalcation.
7. The petitioner filed his reply, a copy of which is present at Annexure-26, clarifying the position and informing that posting of the Chaukidars is in the light of permission granted by the Chief Engineer himself, copies of which is annexed at Annexures-1 to 4 and it was informed that in absence of timely release of funds the Chaukidars were not willing to serve after 31.3.2011. Mr. Giri has referred to the permission granted by the Superintending Engineer granting permission as contained in Annexures-2 to 4 and refers to Annexure-22 which is a letter dated 25.3.2011 to submit that while the petitioner is being charged on defalcation but by the said letter a sum of over two lacs was refunded by the petitioner on its non-utilization.
8. The enquiry report is enclosed at Annexure-32 and which is exhaustive and upholds the three charges against the petitioner of not ensuring compliance of the order of the Superior Officer; for applying pressure for obtaining incorrect approval for the daily wages Chaukidars; and for alleged attempt to defalcate.
9. It is following the enquiry report that a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and which has culminated in the order of penalty impugned at Annexure-35.
10. The short submission made by Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner, to question the order of penalty impugned at Annexure-35 and its affirmance by dismissal of the appeal impugned at Annexure-37 is that it is resting on no evidence for even when the charges levelled against the petitioner is rather serious and alleges disobedience of the orders of the superior by engaging labourers in violation of the Departmental Advisory but neither any oral evide
