Back
Dr. ANSHUMAN, J.
CWJC No.14895 of 2021
(17.1.2023)
Yogendra Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 17 – -Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Rule 43(b) – Forfeiture of 100% pension and gratuity – Disciplinary authority has to discuss primarily on findings of inquiry authority on article of charge shall enter into evidences of record if found sufficient for the purpose then shall record its own reasoning for such disagreement and then record its own finding on surcharge – In present case, inquiry authority has categorically stated on point of first article of charge that neither any material oral or documentary, have been placed by presenting officer before him – Every party has to develop its own case, on its own evidence, oral or documentary – Here disciplinary authority has tried to develop and prove its case on documents and materials provided by petitioner in his defence – Disciplinary authority has not discussed a whisper nor discussed about any evidence which was proceeded before inquiry officers nor assigned any reason as to why he differs from findings of inquiry petitioners – Particularly, on the basis of evidence which was proceeded in form of oral and documenting before inquiring officer, it is gross violence of Rule 18(2) of CCA Rule – Petitioner is entitled to all his arrears of his salary – Civil Writ Application allowed. (Paras 32 to 35)
Dr. Anshuman, J. – Learned counsel Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma for the petitioner and counsel for State present.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 13.10.2020 issued vide Memo No. 4125 whereby and whereunder 100% pension and gratuity has been forfeited and also for payment of full consequential benefit by way of arrear of salary and others on and from 06.06.2014, to restore the pension of the petitioner from the salary and on from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.01.2020 and further for appropriate direction to the respondent to restore the full consequential benefits by way of payment of arrears of salary on and from 06.06.2014 or for grant of any other order which may deem fit and proper.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was joined as a Supply Inspector in the Department of Food and Consumer Protection on 21.11.1989. On 02.08.2009, the D.M. Gopalganj directed to the petitioner to file an F.I.R. against one supplier Mohammad Nizamudin who by way of committing forgery enrolled 19 different names as registered supplier about which a report was received from the Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Bhore (Gopalganj district). The petitioner complied the said order.
4. The petitioner has sanctioned application on 19.01.2010 of Daya Shanker Manjhi along with other persons (Annexure-2 series). After sanction of the application, the said Daya Shanker Manjhi filed one complaint to Vigilance Department on 11.02.2010 with allegation that petitioner has not sanctioned the quota and he is asking for payment of Rs. 2,000/-. On this information made by him, a Vigilance raid was made on 16.02.2010 and petitioner was taken into custody on 17.02.2010.
5. During pendency of petitioner in custody, the department had issued an order dated 09.03.2010 by which the petitioner had suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings in terms of Bihar Government Servants C.C.A. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. (Hereinafter called as Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005). The petitioner was suspended on 09.03.2010, departmental charge-sheet was issued on 28.04.2010, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed during his judicial custody. On 23.07.2010, petitioner was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court. He joined office on 23.07.2010. His joining was accepted U/R 9(3) of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. On 31.08.2010, the petitioner filed his show-cause refuting from all charges, his suspension was revoked U/R 9(3) (1) of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. On 19.11.2010, Inquiry Officer submitted report as charge no.2 has not proved and charge no.1 be kept in abeyance, as matter pending before Vigilance Court. Petitioner was posted as Block Supply Officer, Dobhi Block, Gaya.
6. On 17.03.2011, 2nd show-cause was issued holding petitioner guilty. On 08.02.2014, petitioner was again suspended without assigning any reasons, show-cause notice was asked from the petitioner and he was directed to file his show-cause vide letter dated 12.02.2014 by Special Duty Officer. The Special Duty Officer was appointed as Presenting Officer for the departmental charge-sheet dated 12.04.2010. The Inquiry Officer again started fresh departmental inquiry on the basis of same departmental charge-sheet dated 12.04.2010 i.e. Annexure-8.
7. The petitioner moved before this Hon’ble High Court in CWJC. No.7815 of 2014 for quashing of Memo No.1921 dated 19.03.2014 whereby a fresh inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner started appearing before the Inquiry Officer on day to day basis and requested to provide the copy of charge-sheet. But without supplying the charge-sheet, petitioner was forced to submit his show-cause and ultimately, petitioner has submitted his show-cause on the basis of earlier departmental charge-sheet refuting all the charges.
8. The Inquiry Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing and without examining any eviden
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
