SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Pat) 1388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAKESH KUMAR, J.
Rajendra Ram - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
CWJC No. 3175 of 2009
Decided On : 21-06-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Satish Chandra Jha-3
For the Respondents: Rakesh Prabhat

The absence of oral evidence in a departmental proceeding for serious charges violates the principle of natural justice.

Headnote:

Writ Jurisdiction - Departmental Proceeding - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 - Charges proved, non-speaking order, violation of natural justice

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Officer, was asked to file a show cause in respect of eight charges allegedly committed during 1993-94. Departmental proceeding was initiated in 2002, and the petitioner was imposed with two punishments. The petitioner challenged the punishment order and the rejection of his appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found serious irregularities in the departmental proceeding, including the absence of oral evidence and non-speaking orders. The disciplinary authority failed to assign specific reasons for differing with the enquiry report, violating the principle of natural justice.

Issues: Delay in initiating departmental proceeding, absence of oral evidence, non-speaking orders, violation of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of oral evidence in a departmental proceeding for serious charges violates the principle of natural justice. Non-speaking orders and lack of specific reasons for differing with the enquiry report are also violations of natural justice.

Final Decision: The court set aside the punishment order and the rejection of the appeal, allowing the writ petition with all consequential benefits.

ORDER :

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following reliefs:--

(i) To quash the resolution bearing Memo No. 1469 dated 6.2.2008 whereby and whereunder Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 2.4.2007 has been rejected in a most mechanical manner without applying independent judicial mind as well as without hearing the delinquent officer and is not sustainable in the eye of law and said order is cryptic one.

(ii) To quash the resolution bearing Memo No. 3573 dated 2.4.2007 issued under the signature of Sri Rajendra Prasad, Under Secretary to the Govt., Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt., of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder after conclusion of departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in terms of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 two punishments namely (i) Censure for the year (1994-95), and (ii) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority without considering the defence submitted by the petitioner in complete violation of principle of natural justice as well as norms settled for departmental proceeding."

Short fact of the case is that the petitioner while was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur vide letter No. 3048 dated 22.4.2000 was asked to file his show cause in respect of charges as incorporated in Vide letter dated 22nd April, 2000 the petitioner was asked to file his reply in respect of eight charges allegedly committed by him during the year 1993-94. Regarding the aforesaid charge the District Magistrate, Kaimur-Bhabhua had recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding. Petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply denying the charges leveled against him and prayed for his exoneration. However, in the year 2002 the Government of Bihar resolved to initiate regular departmental proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereafter referred to as "CCA. Rules, 1930") for the aforesaid eight charges, which are as follows:--

(I) That in the year 1993 while the petitioner was posted as Chakbandi Officer, Chand/Chainpur and Incharge Anchaladhikari, Bhabua, Dy. Collector, Record Room was unauthorizedly absent during that period without the prior permission of the Collector. The then Collector directed the then S.D.O., Bhabua to give warning to the petitioner that he will not leave the headquarter without prior permission of the Collector.

(II) That the petitioner was deputed as Magistrate-in-charge by the order of S.D.O., Bhabua to conduct peaceful Intermediate Examination, 1993 at Bhupesh Gupta College, Bhabua but he did not perform his duty nor gave satisfactory explanation asked by S.D.O., Bhabua, so the petitioner was found prima facie guilty for disobeying the order of Higher officials.

(III) That when the petitioner was in additional charge of Circle Officer, Bhabua the Public Account Committee of Bihar Vidhan Sabha blamed the petitioner that he had disposed of several mutation cases after handing over charges. Charge against him is proved in Mutation Case No. 1150/93-94 that he had mutated the name in post dated and sent record after 25 days of his handing over charges to his successor.

(IV) That the petitioner had misused the power in the matter of Integrated Rural Development Program in not timely forwarding petition to the bank concerned and kept them pending. The petitioner sent the selected beneficier's petition to the concerned bank with a comment that "after payment of rent of session 1993-94 the petition should be accepted". These allegations were personally enquired by the then D.M. and after the allegations were found against him true, he commented that the petitioner has put a new method in collecting rent and if this will be done by all the circle officers then this schem









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top