Back
2023 Supreme(Pat) 910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, ARUN KUMAR JHA, JJ.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna - Appellant
Versus
Anusuya Ransing Sahoo Wife of Sri Priyadarshi Sahoo – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19453 of 2021
Decided on : 12-01-2023
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey (A.C. To A.A.G.3)
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation for filing a writ petition against the order of the CAT, the jurisdiction of the CAT to interfere with the initiation of the enquiry, and the principles governing the quashing of show cause notices and charge-sheets.
Headnote:
Limitation - Writ Petition - Apex Court's Decision - All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - [DELAY, WRIT PETITION, CAT ORDER, LIMITATION, APEX COURT DECISION, ALL INDIA SERVICE RULES, ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT] - The court discussed the limitation for filing a writ petition against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and referred to the Apex Court's decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. The court also considered the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a State IPS Officer, challenged the order of the CAT regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her. The respondent was posted as 1st Commandant-cum-Principal, Military Police Training (MPT) College, Dumrao, and faced allegations of financial irregularities and neglect of duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CAT had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the challenge to the initiation of the enquiry and rejection of the respondent's explanation. It held that the respondent's original application before the CAT was not maintainable as per the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the CAT to interfere with the initiation of the enquiry and rejection of the respondent's explanation, as well as the maintainability of the original application under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CAT had erred in interfering with the show cause notice and initiation of the enquiry, citing the principles established by the Apex Court in previous cases. It also emphasized the need for completion of the enquiry proceedings within a specified period.
Final Decision: The court set aside the CAT order and rejected the original application. It directed the concerned authority to complete the enquiry proceedings within six months and instructed the respondent to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
1. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is delay of two and half years in filing petitioner's writ petition against CAT order. There is no limitation in so far filing writ petition against the order of the CAT in the light of Apex Court's decision in the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261. If limitation is not stipulated, in such event reasonable period would be three years with reference to filing of a suit. Consequently there is no delay in filing the present C.W.J.C.
2. Heard learned counsels for respective parties.
3. In the instant writ petition, petitioner-State has assailed the order dated 30.06.2019 passed in O.A. No. 050/00754 of 2018 (M.A./050/00384/2018 and 517/18) by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (For short "CAT").
4. Respondent is an IPS Officer of 2006 batch of Bihar Cadre. She was posted as 1st Commandant-cum- Principal, Military Police Training (in short "MPT") College, Dumrao on 29.03.2013. She was working as such till September, 2014. During the intervening period she was not provided office facilities including various infrastructure to run the administration of the post of 1st Commandant-cum-Principal MPT College, Dumrao. For want of sanction of certain amount to run the aforementioned office, she was not provided financial aid by the competent authority/ government whereby she was compelled to utilize her personal money in order to facilitate infrastructure to the office. That apart, there were certain allegations against her in not maintaining the office records and she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by initiation of inquiry on 10.05.2018 under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 of All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
5. Following five charges have been framed:-
"Article 1: In the statement given by Shri D.N.Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, M.P.T.C. Dumaraon, it was mentioned about commodities related to 11 committees. These were not physically found in the institute. The said items were of a period of posting of Shrimati Sahu dated 01.04.2013 to September, 2014 in the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. From this it is clear that the item purchased by Smt. Sahu were not physically found in the Institute. This shows lack of control and supervision on the part of Smt. Sahu.
Article-II:-That a detailed report given by a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Mansoor Ahmad, IPS regarding allotment and expenditure and purchase of commodities in the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is stated that during the tenure of Smt. Sahu [dated 01.04.2013 to Sept., 2014] cash book with respect to Account Section, contingency register, and stock & distribution register related to G.P. were not maintained. Thereby the procedure regarding accounts has been overlooked for which Smt. Sahu is responsible.
Article-III:- For most of the purchases made during the tenure of Smt. Sahu, payments of money was done in her own bank account. For purchases, no Purchase Committee as per government rules was constituted and rules and procedure relating to purchases were also not followed. It is clear from the inquiry report of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau that Smt Sahu did not follow the financial rules and there was irregularity in the process of purchase of commodities. Smt. Sahu had passed several vouchers obtained in a day from single agency which is in violation of Rule 131 (d) and (f) of Bihar Finance Rules.
Article-IV:-The amount allotted under the head "Hospitality Expense" has been utilised by Smt. Sahu trom Patna which indicates that she was running her office from Patna, the said conduct indicates her arbitrariness.
Article-V:-Smt. Sahu spent her own money to purchase the commodities and got the bill paid in her own account on getting the allotment. Smt. Sahu has committed irregularities and negligence in the process of purchase of items and payment of amount which shows her arbitrariness and neglect
