Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, ANJANA MISHRA, JJ.
Jai Prakash Narayan Sinha, son of Late Raghunath Sahay - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Magadh Division - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9696 of 2014
Decided on : 10-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Binod Kanth, Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Adv
Headnote:
Civil Services Rules, 1930 – Rule 55 r/w Rule 167 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules – Against the rejection by the learned single Judge of the appellant followed by the disciplinary authority while awarding punishment to the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings where the charge was of having misappropriated a certain amount as against some vouchers to the tune of Rs. 8,975/- notice failed to conform to the Rule or the rule of fairness as the Rule fails to indicate that an interrogatory be a substitute of an oral enquiry – Procedure been attempted by the respondents clearly violates the principles of natural justice more so in a case where the delinquent is sought to be punished with the severment of service – Order of punishment resulted in civil consequences and on facts found that denial of fair opportunity as well as non-supply of a relevant document has resulted in real prejudice – Mandate of a statutory provision engrained as a principle of natural justice been violated – Procedure prescribed to be followed in a particular manner cannot be deviated from that and any violation of such procedure would vitiate any action either administrative or quasi-judicial – No exceptional circumstances to deviate from the prescribed process of examination of the District Magistrate or not providing a copy of the letter whereby the signature been denied – Impugned order by the single judge set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 2 to 8; 10 to 14; 16 to 19 & 21)
(1999) 2 SCC 10; AIR 1978 SC 851 – Relied Upon.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri Binod Kanth, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The appeal questions the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 15th of January, 2018, whereby the learned single Judge has rejected the petition of the appellant holding that the procedure and the opportunity, as claimed, was both followed by the disciplinary authority while awarding punishment to the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings where the charge was of having misappropriated a certain amount as against some vouchers to the tune of Rs.8,975/-.
3. The background in which the punishment orders came to be challenged before the learned single Judge needs to be noted as the same has a reflection on the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the respondents.
4. It appears that the appellant was placed under suspension on 17th of January, 2002 on the ground that while working as a Typist-cum-Clerk, he had attempted to encash 14 vouchers by forging the signatures of the then District Magistrate Mr. Arunesh Chawla. A charge-sheet was issued but, according to the appellant, no such documents were supplied and the enquiry proceeded in a manner which was completely biased and without affording a fair opportunity to the appellant. As a matter of fact, the main contention was about the genuineness of the signature of the then District Magistrate on the said vouchers which was made the basis to proceed against the appellant.
5. The second show cause notice to the appellant was served on 11th of June, 2004, that was challenged by the appellant in CWJC No.10617 of 2004 and during the pendency of the said petition, the suspension order was revoked and final orders were passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad on 26th of May, 2005, whereby the appellant was removed from service.
6. The writ petition earlier filed was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the said order and, accordingly, the appellant filed CWJC No.11311 of 2005 contending that the entire proceedings were in violation of Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1930 Rules”) read with Rule 167 of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of punishment on 26th of April, 2011.
7. The issues which were raised, including non-supply of the documents and particularly non-examination of the then District Magistrate or an opportunity to cross-examine, the Court allowed the writ petition recording the following findings:
“Considering the admission in the Counter Affidavit regarding non furnishing of document, non-examination of the then District Magistrate, who denied his signature on the vouchers and non-availability of proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, it is sufficient for holding that the impugned order, dated 26.05.2005 was issued by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad in complete violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 55A of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Rule 167 of Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rule. The petitioner could not have been terminated from his service in a Departmental Proceeding without following the proper procedure as provided under the Rule. For such reasons I find that the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, it is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Jehanabad for conducting the Departmental Proceeding afresh. Petitioner, in the meantime, will be allowed to join his service with all consequential benefits till the date the Departmental Proceeding is finally concluded and a proper order is passed. The Departmental Enquiry must be concluded within six months from the date of production/communication of this Order. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Application is disposed of.”
8. It is thereafter that the petitioner, who was directed to have been reinstated in service, failed to get
