IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
Nilima Sinha W/o K.K. Sinha – Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15728 of 2019
Decided on : 24-12-2021
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 17 – Dismissal from service – Basically three charges have been levelled against petitioner; one pertaining to petitioner not residing at Headquarters; second charge is with regard to petitioner taking bribe and misbehaving with Anganwadi Sevikas and her subordinate staffs and third charge pertains to mental and physical torture of Sevikas/Sahayikas by petitioner and her husband as also regarding husband of petitioner engaging in sexually abusing Sevikas/Sahayikas – Charges framed and levelled against petitioner are elaborate and depict charges in an explicit manner – Charges have not been framed on the basis of any complaint petition but have been framed and levelled against petitioner after due enquiry by Sub-Divisional Officer, BDO, District Programme Officer and District Magistrate – No prejudice has been caused to petitioner – Quality of evidence is important and not quantity thereof – It is not necessary that all charge-sheeted witnesses should be examined – Thought petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine witnesses produced by prosecution, nonetheless, both petitioner and her husband who was representing petitioner as her Advocate, had flatly refused to cross-examine witnesses – There being no illegality in conduct of departmental proceedings, there is no occasion to interfere with conclusion of disciplinary authority – Punishment of dismissal from service inflicted upon petitioner, is not shockingly disproportionate in view of grave charges – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16)
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, neither evidence can be reappreciated nor interference can be made with conclusion of enquiry proceedings, if same has been conducted, in accordance with law nor this Court can go into reliability/ adequacy of evidence or interfere if there is some legal evidence on which findings are based – This Court can only consider whether enquiry has been held by competent authority and whether same has been held in accordance with procedure established by law. (Para 14)
JUDGMENT :
1. The present case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 27.04.2012, passed by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 31.05.2019, as contained in Memo dated 18.06.2019, whereby and whereunder the review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner is that the petitioner had initially joined as a lady supervisor whereafter she was promoted on the post of Child Development project Officer vide notification dated 14.01.2009 and posted at Tilothu (Rohtas). It is the case of the petitioner that since she had exposed the corruption prevailing in the Anganwadi centers under Tilothu project falling within the administrative control of Rohtas District, she was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.04.2010. The petitioner is stated to have then filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 7654 of 2010 challenging the aforesaid order of suspension dated 21.04.2010, however, since the departmental proceedings had already been initiated against her, a coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 18.11.2010, disposed off the said writ petition with a direction to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of the order, failing which the disciplinary authority shall be obliged to reconsider the issue of continued suspension of the petitioner. The petitioner had then filed an appeal against the said order dt. 18.11.2010 bearing L.P.A. No. 34/2011, however, the same was disposed off by an order dated 15.03.2012, passed by a Ld. Division Bench of this Court, with a direction that in case the final order is not passed in the ongoing departmental proceeding by 31.3.2012, the order of suspension dated 21.04.2010 shall stand revoked and the petitioner would be reinstated in service with effect from 1st April, 2012. The enquiry proceedings had then commenced and ultimately the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 29.04.2011 was issued to the petitioner enclosing the copy of the enquiry report to which the petitioner had submitted her reply. The disciplinary authority had then passed the impugned order of dismissal dated 27.04.2012, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWJC No. 1173 of 2015, however the said writ petition was disposed off by an order dated 18.01.2019, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise her objections before the competent authority by filing a review petition, whereupon the petitioner had filed a petition before the appellate authority-cum-Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna on 07.02.2019 but the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dt. 31.05.2019, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to state the actual and correct facts. It appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by a resolution contained in Memo dated 07.05.2010 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (upon the orders of the Governor, Bihar), containing the charges levelled against the petitioner in Prapatra-‘ka’ along with the evidence. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the charges levelled against the petitioner, as mentioned in Prapatra-‘ka’ herein below:-
5. Thereafter, the enquiry procee
Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran
State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557]
State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723]
Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh [(1969) 1 SCC 502]
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [AIR 1964 SC 477]
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749]
Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463]
Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386]
Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. [(2007) 4 SCC 669]
Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri [(2009) 15 SCC 620]
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
Disciplinary dismissals must respect procedural fairness and natural justice, ensuring proper evidence is presented and that the accused has a fair opportunity to defend against alleged misconduct.
statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry, which are behind the back of the Applicant, and for which he had no opportunity to cross-examine them, cannot be used in regular inquiry, as the delinqu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.