Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DR. ANSHUMAN, J.
Nirmal Kumar, S/o. Girish Ram - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1584 of 2020
Decided On : 23-11-2023
JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, Rule 18(3), Rule 19 - The court discussed the applicability of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, particularly focusing on the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and the procedural requirements for imposing penalties. It highlighted that Rule 18(3) pertains to major penalties, while Rule 19 governs minor penalties. The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 19, which necessitates providing an opportunity for representation when disagreeing with an inquiry officer's exoneration. This procedural violation influenced the court's decision to quash the disciplinary orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector, challenged disciplinary actions taken against him following a complaint that led to an FIR and subsequent departmental proceedings. Despite being found innocent by the inquiry officer, he faced penalties imposed by the disciplinary authority, which he argued were issued by an incompetent authority and violated procedural rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge memo was issued by a competent authority and that the evidence presented was sufficient for the disciplinary authority's conclusions. However, it ruled that the disciplinary authority's failure to provide a disagreement memo and opportunity for representation constituted a violation of the Bihar CCA Rules, specifically Rule 19 in conjunction with Rule 18(3).
Issues: 1. Whether the charge memo was issued by a competent authority? 2. Whether reliance could be placed on documents without proving their contents through witness testimony in a quasi-judicial proceeding? 3. Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders were valid given the alleged procedural violations?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that while the charge memo was validly issued, the disciplinary authority's failure to adhere to procedural requirements under the Bihar CCA Rules, particularly regarding the opportunity for representation after disagreement with the inquiry officer's report, rendered the disciplinary action invalid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the disciplinary orders and the appellate decision, allowing the petitioner to be retried in compliance with the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, within six months.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Anshuman, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the Memo No. 1008 dated 28.10.2019 annexed as Annexure-6 passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar and further to quash the order dated 16.11.2018 contained in Memo No. 4758 annexed as Annexure-4 and the order dated 21.11.2017 contained in Memo No. 4742 annexed as Annexure-D.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Sub Inspector when a complaint was filed against him on the basis of which a formal FIR was drawn and the said FIR was registered as Goradih Case No. 92 of 2017 on the basis of the complaint dated 12.05.2017. Counsel also submits that on the basis of the said FIR, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner bearing Departmental Enquiry No. 11 of 2017 and the charge memo has been issued to the petitioner on 15.09.2017 after receiving the report dated 26.06.2017 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur and on the basis of the said report, inquiry was initiated bearing Departmental Enquiry No. 11 of 2017 in which the enquiry officer has found the petitioner innocent and issued the enquiry report vide Memo No. 299 of 2017 dated 31.10.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon submission of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, Bhagalpur has passed final order against him vide Memo No. 4742 dated 21.11.2017 by which the petitioner was imposed the punishment of forfeiture of six months increment as one of the black spot awarded. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has challenged the said disciplinary order before appellate authority and the appellate authority has passed final order issued vide memo No. 1261 dated 06.11.2018 in which order passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed. Counsel further submits that against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the appeal/ memorial before the Director General of Police but it was also rejected vide Memo No. 1008 dated 28.10.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge memo which is Annexure-B to the counter affidavit is non jurisdictional as petitioner was working as Sub Inspector whereas, charge memo has been issued by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur and for Sub Inspector, Senior Superintendent of Police is not the appointing authority. Counsel further submits that from the enquiry report it is also clear that all the witnesses which were examined are in the nature of formal witness who were used only for exhibiting the documents but content of those documents were not proved and as such none of the evidence could be acknowledged. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the enquiry report, the inquiry officer has found the petitioner innocent but the disagreement memo has not been served upon the petitioner which is in gross violation of Rule 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Bihar CCA Rules, 2005). Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Inspector General is the appointing authority for Sub Inspector and therefore, the disciplinary order passed by the Superintendent of Police is non jurisdictional.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has also not considered the case of the petitioner on merit and passed a routine order without on the basis of materials on record. Counsel also submits that the Director General of Police has rejected the claim of the petitioner only on technical grounds that appeal/memorial is not permissible in case of the petitioner and as such the present writ petition is fit to be allowed and all the orders under challenge are fit to be quashed. Counsel further submits that from the impugned order, Senior Superintendent of
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings, particularly the requirement to provide an opportunity for representation when the disciplinary au....
The Superintendent of Police can impose penalties on Sub-Inspectors, but failure to follow due process, including issuing a second show-cause notice, breaches natural justice and invalidates the disc....
Disciplinary action against government employees must comply with statutory provisions, and jurisdictional authority must be respected; lack of proper procedure and reasoning renders proceedings void....
Charge memo in disciplinary proceedings must be approved by the disciplinary authority; lack thereof renders entire proceedings vitiated ab initio, warranting quashing without remand in peculiar circ....
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
