Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANA MISHRA, J.
Rajesh Ranjan Poddar - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Bihar Land and Revenue Department.
- Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2330 of 2015
Decided On : 25-02-2020
For the Petitioner: Mr.Ansul, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Rajeev Shekhar
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay, A.C. to G.P.-7
Headnote:
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 17 – Dismissal from service – Petitioner raised his defence in his reply to second show cause notice, but disciplinary authority without considering defence and without appreciating evidences held petitioner guilty of charges and accordingly dismissed him from service – Documents called for by petitioner and list of witnesses were not supplied to him while serving Prapatra-"K" – Articles of charge revealed that petitioner had received money but in enquiry report, it has been stated that money in question which is alleged to have been received by petitioner, was found in an iron chest in chamber of petitioner – Allegation that petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting bribe cannot be said to have been substantiated – Non-supply of such documents which formed the basis of vigilance enquiry vitiates proceeding – There has been gross violation not only of 2005 Rules but also same is in clear defiance of principles of natural justice – Enquiry officer having not followed procedure as prescribed under 2005 Rules cannot support his findings and report by applying his mind to evidence and he cannot record ipse dixit that charges are proved – Enquiry report also stands vitiated as mere recital without assigning clear and cogent reasons that he had considered documentary and substantial evidence would not suffice – Enquiry report as also impugned orders set aside – However, matter remitted back to disciplinary authority for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law from stage it stood vitiated. (Paras 6, 20, 21, 25 and 26)
JUDGMENT :
The writ petitioner before this Court is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order, contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application, issued under the signature/order of the Collectorate, Bhagalpur, bearing Memo No.1145 dated 26.05.2014, and which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority-the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, in Service Appeal No.39/2014-15, vide order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure 6), which is also impugned in the present writ application.
2. Before adverting to the submissions of the petitioner, it would be necessary to detail the brief facts from which the present writ application emanates:
(i) Having joined the service of the State of Bihar, the petitioner worked as Halka Karmachari in Anchal Office at Kahalgaon at the time of the occurrence. The petitioner is to superannuate in the year 2027.
(ii) Pursuant to a vigilance case, the authorities, vide Memo No.2184 dated 30.09.2008, issued a memo of charge in the form of Prapatra-“Ka” to the petitioner and accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation.
(iii) After the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed, the disciplinary proceeding continued and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, vide Memo dated 04.03.2014. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice dated 04.03.2014 to the petitioner annexing therewith a copy of the enquiry report, which was duly answered by the petitioner on 18.03.2014. However, ignoring the reply filed by the petitioner and ignoring the grounds stated therein, the disciplinary authority vide Memo No.1145 dated 26.05.2014, dismissed the petitioner from the service with effect from the date of issuance of the order (Annexure 4).
(iv) The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order, preferred an appeal, bearing Service Appeal Case No.39/2014-15 before the court of learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2014, thus upholding the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence the present writ application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing his grounds for interference in the aforementioned orders impugned in the present writ application, submitted that Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2005 Rules”) provides a specific procedure for imposing major penalties and also the manner in which the enquiry can be held. It is submitted that in the present case, entire procedure has not been followed and the manner which was adopted by the disciplinary authority was wholly irregular while inflicting the petitioner with the punishment of dismissal from service. Neither the list of documents nor the list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge were proposed to be sustained, were given to the petitioner and therefore, the entire proceeding stands vitiated and any order of punishment which followed thereafter, including the consequential order passed in the appeal, could not be sustained in the eyes of law and thus the same may be quashed.
4. Tracing the history of the complaint against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of a complaint, the Vigilance Bureau laid a trap and arrested the petitioner. Admittedly, no money was recovered from the person of the petitioner nor the petitioner had demanded any bribe from the complainant. On the contrary, the allegation by the complainant was that he had been informed by the villager that without bribe, his work could not be done. The money in question was recovered from a distant place from a box, which led to the institution of an FIR., being Vigilance Police Station Case No.99 of 2006. It was on the basis of such an FIR, that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by serving Prapatra-“Ka”, alleging th
