Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
Smt. Dropadi Devi @ Dropati Devi and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and Ors - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14753 of 2014
Decided On : 22-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Shambhu Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar
Headnote:
Service Law – Termination – Writ Petitioner arrested on the allegation of accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000 – Non-appearance of complainant in the enquiry – Lack of evidence in the charge memo – Enquiry report failed to conclude the charges to be proved – Enquiry officer recommended the Punishment of demotion and for keeping the petitioner away from important works – Disciplinary authority issued the extreme punishment of termination without basing the conclusions of the petitioner on any material – Nothing on record to sustain the charges against the petitioner of soliciting or accepting bribe – Enquiry officer recorded that the conduct of the petitioner been contrary to the provisions contained in clause 3(1) of the Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976 – Findings of the case based on no evidence and on surmises and conjectures – Disciplinary authority proceeded contrary to the Procedure prescribed u/s 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 – Order of termination ex-facie unsustainable – Entire proceedings vitiated – Consequently, legal heirs be entitled to all consequently benefits. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17 to 19)
Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 17 – Rule does not contemplate recommendation of a punishment by the enquiry officer – Enquiry officer exceeded his jurisdiction – Such overzealous approach by the enquiry officer gives ride to reasonable likelihood of his predisposition – Level of fairnesrs and standard of integrity required from an enquiry officer performing a quasi judicial functioning is of a very high degree. (Paras 12 & 13)
(2010)2 SCC 772 – Relied upon.
JUDGMENT :
1. It is submitted by petitioners’ counsel that in the cause title description of P.S. has wrongly been mentioned as “Telhara” in place of “Teghra”.
2. Counsel for the petitioners’ is permitted to correct the said description during course of the day.
3. Heard Mr. Shambhu Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent-State.
4. The original writ petitioner was functioning as a “Clerk” in the Office of District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai. The petitioner was arrested on the allegation of accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand) from the nominee of one of the retired employees. Allegation was that amount had been solicited for processing the claim for retiral dues benefits of the employee.
5. On basis of the said allegations, criminal proceedings in Begusarai Town P. S. Case No. 227 of 2005, was instituted which, later on, was handed over to the Vigilance Department. On the same set of charges, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner departmentally.
6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that from the very inception i.e., at the stage of issuance of charge memo dated 30.01.2014, the Authorities have committed lapses on account of which the entire proceedings, including the order of termination dated 02.04.2014, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, are unsustainable as being contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, ( For brevity “Bihar CCA Rules, 2005).
7. The petitioners’ counsel further highlighted that neither in the charge memo, nor before the Enquiry Officer, any evidence has been produced which can sustain the charges against the petitioner. Even the complainant Renu Sinha has not appeared in support of the charges against the petitioner in the enquiry. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Report did not conclude the charges to be proved. However, the Enquiry Officer, has proceeded to recommend the punishment of demotion against the petitioner and for keeping him away from important works. Such a recommendation of punishment by the Enquiry Officer is not contemplated under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Such action of the Enquiry Officer shows his predisposition.
8. It has further been submitted that that order of punishment dated 02.04.2014 manifests total non-application of mind. No reasons have been assigned in support of the conclusion. Abruptly, the Disciplinary Authority has issued the extreme punishment of termination without basing his conclusions on any material. The conclusions, contained in the order of punishment by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger, apart from being violation of the requirements contained in Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, are also perverse.
9. Learned State Counsel submits that the order of punishment is product of procedure in accordance with Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The charge memo was issued. The matter was enquired into by the Enquiry Officer. After submission of Enquiry Report and after an opportunity of second Show-cause, order of punishment has been issued. The petitioner, having accepted bribe, is not entitled to any leniency. The procedural requirements having been complied the punishment does not warrant any interference in the instant proceedings.
10. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court would observe that before the Enquiry Officer it is apparent that other than some inter departmental communication and the fact that the petitioner was arrested in the criminal case, there is nothing on record to sustain the charges against the petitioner of soliciting or accepting bribe. None has appeared in support of the charges or to prove the documentary evidence brought on record. The Enquiry Officer has taken note of the fact that proceedings in the Criminal Trial are pending in the Court having taken note of such pendency, a conclusion has been recorded that conduct of the petitioner has been
