Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 1610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JYOTI SARAN, J.
Navin Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Badri Narayan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2832 of 2014
Decided On : 29-09-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Gajanan Arun, Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Mr. Prakritita Sharms.
The disciplinary proceeding should be based on serious misconduct warranting a punishment, and the disciplinary authority must consider the delinquent's explanation and the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceeding - Land Acquisition Officer - Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 - Rule 17, Rule 19 - Judgment reported in 2014(3) PLJR 576 (Hareshwar Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Land Acquisition Officer, was charged with being slow in distributing compensation for land acquisition for construction of N.H. 57. The petitioner argued that he had accelerated the distribution of compensation after his posting and that the punishment imposed was arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been unfairly singled out for disciplinary action, as he had distributed more than double the compensation amount in less time than his predecessors. The court also noted that the disciplinary authority had not considered the petitioner's explanation and had imposed a mechanical punishment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the disciplinary action, the petitioner's performance in distributing compensation, and the application of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceeding should not culminate in a punishment every time it is set in motion and that the imposition of penalty should be warranted by serious misconduct. The court also emphasized the need for the disciplinary authority to consider the delinquent's explanation and the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the orders imposing punishment on the petitioner and allowed the writ petition, directing the refund of the amount realized from the petitioner.
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned Standing Counsel No.25 for the State.
2. With the consent of the parties this writ petition has been heard with a view to its final disposal at this stage itself.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.5902 dated 11.4.2013, whereby the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect has been imposed under the orders of the State Government impugned at Annexure-13 and which order has been confirmed when the review application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 6.8.2013 of the State Government impugned at Annexure-15.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is of being slow in the matter of distribution of compensation in respect of acquisition of land for construction of N.H. 57.
5. While it is the contention of Mr. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that neither the petitioner has been found wanting on his discharge of distribution of compensation nor there is any parameter set up rather the petitioner has accelerated the distribution of compensation since after his posting at Supaul on 31.10.2009 which is reflecting from the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna dated 19.12.2012 present at Annexure-12 which shows that within a span of less than 2 years, he distributed more than double the compensation amount than what the State authorities could do in almost four years. He thus submits that despite the circumstances brought to the notice of the Principal Secretary and there being nothing on record to show that the petitioner was slack on his work, yet the punishment, which is an arbitrary action.
6. Mr. Verma has also with reference to a judgment reported in 2014(3) PLJR 576 (Hareshwar Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar) submitted that although rule 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) provides for the procedure for imposing minor penalty but rule 19(1)(b) leaves a discretion for the Disciplinary Authority to follow the exhaustive procedure provided for imposition of major penalty as provided under rule 17. According to Mr. Verma once the disciplinary proceeding has been set in motion by service of charge memo, then there was no turning back for the Disciplinary Authority and he is bound to complete the process as provided under rule 17 of ‘the Rules’.
7. The argument of Mr. Verma has been contested by Mr. Khan, learned Standing Counsel 25 and who with reference to the charge memo impugned at Annexure- 6 has submitted that a cursory glance of the nature of imputation would confirm that no effective step was taken by the petitioner for expediting the distribution of compensation despite an advisory issued by the Chief Minister in the High Level Committee held on 23.9.2009. He thus submits that it is in consideration of the work done by the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has been lenient enough to impose minor penalty but that would not condone the default made by the petitioner.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. It is not that every time a disciplinary proceeding is set in motion that it has to culminate in a punishment.
9. Annexure 6 is the charge memo and while Charge No.1 relates to the period 2005-07, the petitioner is yet to be posted at the place in question. A decision is taken in the High Level Committee headed by the Chief Minister on 23.9.2009 to complete the distribution by 31.10.2009 and again the petitioner is yet to be posted. The petitioner was posted at Supaul as a Land Acquisition Officer subsequently and where he joined on 31.10.2009. Meaning thereby it is on the last day of the deadline fixed in the meeting held on 23.9.2009 that the petitioner was posted and is expected
