IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
CWJC No.7364 of 2022
(9.1.2024)
Sudhir Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Punishment – Furnishing of clear, cogent and succinct reason in support of impugned order is an indispensable component of a decision making process – Order of punishment does not depict role played by petitioner in alleged irregularity committed by then Cashier – Same is not only cryptic and unreasoned order but also depicts complete non-application of mind inasmuch as same has not taken into account defence put forth by petitioner – Disciplinary authority while exercising quasi-judicial power is bound to mention defence raised by petitioner in his show cause which is also required to be considered by authority and same should be rejected by a reasoned order – Impugned orders quashed and set aside – Writ petition allowed. (Paras 5 to 7)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of censure for the year 2015-16. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 10.12.2021 issued under the pen and signature of the Additional Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission and was appointed as Officer under the Bihar Administrative Service Cadre Class-II. It is submitted that while the petitioner was posted as Senior Deputy Collector, Khagaria, he was given additional charge of Town Executive Officer, Khagaria vide notification dated 04.02.2015 of the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and vide memo dated 06.02.2015 issued by the District Magistrate, Khagaria, the petitioner was given charge on 10.02.2015 by his predecessor and vide notification dated 30.03.2015 of the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna the petitioner was authorised to discharge the duties and function of Executive Officer, Khagaria Municipality, Khagaria till further orders in addition to his work. The petitioner had then continued to hold the charge of Executive Officer, Khagaria Municipality, Khagaria till 02.09.2015, whereafter he was relieved and charge was handed over to his successor. Supposedly, an enquiry was held by the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and the Director, Municipality Administration-cum- Additional Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and a report dated 20.01.2017 and 22.09.2017 was submitted wherein it was found that in between the period 27.08.2016 to 21.07.2017, a sum of Rs. 85,45,130/- was not deposited by the then cashier Shri Chandan Kumar either in the bank or in the treasury and upon being asked about the reason for doing so no satisfactory answer could be given, hence by keeping such a huge amount as cash in hand, the said amount was misused. In the said report itself, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was posted as Executive Officer, Khagaria Municipality, Khagaria in between the period 10.02.2015 to 02.09.2015.
3. As far as the petitioner and other Executive Officers are concerned, it had been mentioned in the said report dated 22.09.2017 that no concrete action was taken against the guilty personnel, hence appropriate action can also be taken against them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforesaid report dated 22.09.2017 was placed in the relevant file of the respondent-Department on 21.06.2019, whereafter the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna had endorsed the file to the Special Secretary, who vide a detailed note dated 04.07.2019 had found that the aforesaid allegations levelled in the report dated 22.09.2017 did not pertain to the tenure of the petitioner and thereafter, he had dealt with the complicity of the various personnel and had recommended for initiation of departmental proceedings against Smt. Punam Kumari, Shri Chandan Kumar and the then Executive Officer Shri Binod Kumar, however, as far as the petitioner is concerned, it had been stated in the said note dated 04.07.2019 that though the explanation submitted by him has been accepted but recommendation can be made to warn him. The file was then endorsed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna who had endorsed the aforesaid views of the Special Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar,
Janeshwar Sinha vs. State of Bihar
Dr. Kamla Singh vs. State of Bihar
Smt. Abha Kumari vs. State of Bihar 2023 (6) BLJ 341 – Relied.
Disciplinary authorities cannot impose both major and minor penalties simultaneously; violations of procedural propriety in inquiries can invalidate punitive actions.
Financial misconduct by postal GDS proved by documents and admissions justifies removal from service; no leniency despite repayment, as integrity in public money handling demands strictness; courts i....
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.