Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Ram Pravesh Sharma @ Ram Pravesh Prasad Sharma, son of late Kapildeo Narain
Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3656 of 2011
Decided On : 13-04-2018
SERVICE LAW - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - CHARGES OF NEGLIGENCE AND LACK OF SUPERVISION - ENQUIRY REPORT - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Divisional Manager in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC), was dismissed from service on charges of negligence and lack of supervision. He appealed to the Minister of Transport, who set aside the dismissal order and directed payment of post-retiral dues. However, the BSRTC did not comply with the order. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the BSRTC to implement the appellate order and pay his post-retiral dues.
Finding of the Court:
1. The charges against the petitioner did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal from service. 2. The departmental enquiry was initiated in haste and the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority acted with a premeditated mind to punish the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself and the principles of natural justice were violated. 4. The appellate authority, the Minister of Transport, had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the dismissal order. 5. The BSRTC's failure to comply with the appellate order was arbitrary and illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the charges against the petitioner constituted misconduct warranting dismissal from service. 2. Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the dismissal order. 4. Whether the BSRTC's failure to comply with the appellate order was arbitrary and illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The charges against the petitioner, which related to negligence and lack of supervision, did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal from service. The petitioner's failure to achieve certain targets did not amount to misconduct, especially in the absence of any evidence that he had acted with mala fide intention or that his actions had caused financial loss to the BSRTC. 2. The departmental enquiry was conducted in haste and the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority acted with a premeditated mind to punish the petitioner. The petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself and the principles of natural justice were violated. 3. The appellate authority, the Minister of Transport, had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the dismissal order. The BSRTC's contention that the Minister did not have jurisdiction was rejected by the Court. 4. The BSRTC's failure to comply with the appellate order was arbitrary and illegal. The BSRTC had no justification for not implementing the order, and its failure to do so amounted to contempt of court.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal. The petitioner was directed to be treated as having retired from service with effect from the date of his dismissal, and the BSRTC was directed to pay him all consequential benefits along with statutory interest within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
1. The present writ application has been preferred for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to restore the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Divisional Traffic Manager as he was on the date of his dismissal vide office order no.165 dated 25.02.2010 and accordingly to allow him all the permissible dues which the petitioner would have been entitled to upon his retirement due on 28.02.2010 in the light of the appellate order dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure-12 to the writ application). Petitioner has also challenged the order of dismissal vide office order No.165 dated 25.02.2010 as contained in Annexure-‘1’ to the writ application. According to the petitioner, against the order of dismissal passed by the Administrator who happened to be the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Transport, Govt. of Bihar, he had preferred an appeal before the Government in the concerned Ministry and the appellate authority i.e. the Minister, Transport Department, Government of Bihar acting as the appellate authority in terms of Rule 24(3) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Service Rules’) vide his order as contained in memo no.141 dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure- 12 to the writ application) set aside the order no.165 dated 25.02.2010 and directed for payment of post-retiral dues of the petitioner, but the grievance of the petitioner is that, despite there being an order of the appellate authority, his post-retiral dues have not been paid. It is an admitted position at the bar that the order, as contained in memo no.141 dated 30.04.2010, passed by the Departmental Minister setting aside the order passed by the Administrator/Transport Secretary-cum- Commissioner has not been challenged by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter „Corporation or respondent no.3) before any competent court of law. The petitioner is, thus seeking a mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to implement the order, though in prayer portion he has also challenged Annexure-‘1’.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the Corporation in June, 1980 and was working there on the post of Divisional Manager. He was due to retire on 28.02.2010. Two charges were framed against him vide memo no.304 and 410 dated 08.01.2010 and 12.01.2010 respectively. The operational portion of the charges leveled against the petitioner has been stated in paragraph 9 of the writ application, which reads as under:-
“(i) In December, 2009, the income of the Corporation per effective kilometer was Rs.14.64 which was much less then Rs.18.37 per effective kilometer of December, 2008 and in the first six months of January, 2008 it had diminished to Rs.14.12 per effective kilometer as against Rs.18.01 per effective kilometer of January, 2009. Also, there was loss of revenue because 76% of the buses remained running off road as compared to those running on road. No improvement was there despite necessary directions of Divisional Managers in monthly meetings. These caused financial loss to the Corporation because of lack of supervision, negligence and apathetic approach towards work of the petitioner.
(ii) The vacant plot of land of the Sultanganj Bus Stand was settled every year during Shrawani Fair through requisite procedure which in the ensure heavy revenue to the Corporation. Non-settlement of the said vacant plot during Shrawani Fair for the year 2009 resulted in loss to the Corporation to a tune of lakhs of rupees. These caused financial loss to the Corporation due to inefficiency, negligence of the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner submitted a detail and comprehensive reply on 01.02.2010, but, according to the petitioner, the same was not considered for the reason that the enquiry report in respect of charge, as contained in memo no.304 dated 08.01.2010, was already submitted on 30.01.2010 vide Annexure-2 to the writ appli
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
