Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PRABHAT KUMAR JHA, J.
Shambhu Sharan Sinha Son of Late Sita Ram Sinha - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8280 of 2014
Decided On : 13-04-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajeet Pratap Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adherence to the prescribed procedures under Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005 is essential in conducting departmental proceedings, and failure to do so can result in the violation of natural justice and render the disciplinary action illegal.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Termination from Services - C.C.A. Rules, 2005 - Rule 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, was terminated from services due to alleged financial irregularities. The petitioner challenged the termination through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental proceeding was not held in accordance with the prescribed procedures under Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005. The disciplinary authority did not serve relevant documents and witness statements to the petitioner, and the enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry as per the prescribed procedure. The court concluded that the order of dismissal was illegal, bad, and unsustainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the departmental proceeding was conducted in accordance with the law, specifically Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority failed to follow the prescribed procedures under Rule 17, which resulted in the denial of proper hearing and violation of natural justice. The non-observance of the prescribed procedure amounted to non-providing of sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order of dismissal was set aside. The matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to proceed further in accordance with the law.
1. The petitioner seeks following relief’s :
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.03.2013 whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the services and also quashing of all consequential orders.
(ii) To issue a direction to the authorities to reinstate the petitioner in the services along with due promotions.
(iii) To issue a direction to the authorities for the payment of salary and other admissible benefits from the date the same has been stopped.
(iv) To issue any other relief or relief’s to which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts requisite and relevant are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar in the year 1987. In the month of March, the petitioner took the charge as Assistant Engineer, Canal Circle, Purnea under Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea. In the month of June, 1998, petitioner was asked to take additional charge as Dy. Collector, Revenue Division, Purnea. From the month of June, 1998, to April, 2003, the petitioner was asked to take additional charge of Dy. Collector, Revenue Division, Saharsa and later on, Dy. Collector, Revenue Division, Araria. For the first time, the Assistant Engineers were given additional charge of Dy. Collector of different revenue divisions of circles of Water Resources Department. The petitioner received information in the month of September, 2003 with regard to anomaly in account keeping, revenue receipts vis-à-vis expenditure incurred during the year 2002-03 from various circles of Purnea, Revenue Division. The petitioner enquired from the Cashier who informed the petitioner that some problem arose due to adjustment of money, allotment received from the Govt. and the revenue collected from the farmers as water rent. The petitioner informed the same to his successor but the petitioner was served with a show cause notice through Letter No. 1371 dated 22.11.2003 calling upon the petitioner to explain the alleged financial irregularities on five Heads during his tenure but in the meantime, a committee was constituted vide order as contained in memo No. 1374 dated 21.11.2003 to inspect the records of revenue division and submit comprehensive report. A departmental proceeding was initiated vide resolution dated 16.07.2005 as contained in Memo No.811 (Annexure 6). Sri Shyam Bihari Ram, Superintending Engineer, Water Drainage Circle, Water Resources Department, Purnea was appointed as conducting officer and Sri Banke Bihari Prasad, Executive Engineer of the Water Drainage and Investigation Division made the presenting officer. Memo of charges as contained in Letter No. 3345 dated 17.08.2005 was served on the petitioner on 20.08.2005 (Annexure 7). The petitioner submitted his show cause to the enquiry officer but the enquiry officer did not hold any departmental enquiry. The petitioner again filed his reply to the show cause (Annexure 13 and 13/1) but the petitioner was never summoned and asked to produce any witness. The enquiry officer did not conduct any enquiry but the petitioner received order as contained in Memo No. 1052 dated 12.10.2009 issued under the signature of Dy. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna whereby his services has been terminated with effect thereon.
3. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 11259 of 2010 against the order of his termination from services as contained in Notification No. 1052 dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure 14) and for other consequential benefits. Panta High Court vide order dated 01.12.2011 set aside the order dated 12.10.2009 on the ground that no show cause notice after submission of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner and consequently petitioner was directed to file reply to the second show cause (Annexure 15). The petitioner submitted his detailed show cause along with judgment and order of the High Court passed in CWJC No. 11259 of 2010 (Annexure 16) but a
