Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
Bhogendra Nath Jha, Son of Late Tara Kant Jha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6286 of 2016
Decided On : 08-07-2024
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv., Mr. Nishant Kr. Jha, Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Sinha, Mr. Arya Achint.
Retrospective penalties in disciplinary proceedings violate procedural rules, even if misconduct is established.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 - Rule 14(vii) - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner challenged penalty order for misconduct during tenure as Managing Director, claiming retrospective punishment violates procedural rules - Court found disciplinary authority's findings valid but quashed penalty due to procedural irregularities. (Paras 4, 12, 13)
(B) Misconduct - Definition and scope - Misconduct encompasses acts inconsistent with public service interests; negligence may indicate culpability - Court reiterated that misconduct must be assessed contextually. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as Managing Director of a bank, faced allegations of financial irregularities leading to disciplinary action and penalties imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the penalty order due to procedural violations, remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority for fresh proceedings.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of retrospective punishment and the definition of misconduct in the context of public service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the charges were substantiated, the imposition of penalties from a retrospective date contravened established procedural rules.
Result: Writ petition allowed, penalty quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(Purnendu Singh, J.)
Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Sanjay Pandey along with Mr. Nishant Kr. Jha, learned counsels for the BPSC and Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Sinha, learned AAG 13 along with Mr. Arya Achint, learned AC to AAG 13 for the State.
2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-
(A) Quashing the notification contained in memo no.3722 dated 06.11.2015 whereby and whereunder the following penalties have been imposed on the petitioner :(i) reduction to four lower stage in time-scale of pay, (ii) he shall not earn increments in pay during the period of such reduction and (iii) during the period of suspension he shall not get anything except the subsistence allowance.
(B) Directing the respondents to make enhance or suitable payment to the petitioner for the period of suspension (05.02.2014 to 06.11.2015) in terms of Rule 10(1)(I) read with Rule 11(5) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classfication, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005).
(C) Any other relief/reliefs to which, in the facts and circumstances of case, the petitioners are entitled to.”
3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:
The petitioner was posted as Managing Director of the Patliputra Central Co-operative Bank from 19.06.2003 to 01.08.2007. During the said period, computerization of Bank took place and financial irregularities were detected and complicity of the petitioner in the said irregularities was prima facie established on the basis of vigilance inquiry calling for registration of P.S. Case No.49 of 2010 on 02.07.2010. Petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for the alleged financial irregularities committed by him, while posted as Managing Director of the Patliputra Central Co-operative Bank. Based on the said allegation, the petitioner was served a show cause dated 12.08.2015 and faced disciplinary proceeding for the main allegation that Chairman of the Board had advised the petitioner to adopt certain process, which ultimately benefited the Contractor company running in the name and style of NELITO System, causing financial loss to the Bank and at the same time, the petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of the NELITO System, amounting to Rs.25,60,000/- on 30.07.2007. Based on the said allegation, disciplinary proceeding was conducted against him by serving him a charge memo, containing 12 charges; inquiry officer was appointed and inquiry was held and inquiry officer found all the charges proved against the petitioner. Disagreeing with the inquiry report on certain conclusion, the disciplinary authority served the petitioner second show cause. Petitioner replied and his reply was found unsatisfactory and thereafter the disciplinary authority vide impugned order contained in memo No.3722 dated 06.11.2015 imposed penalties after consent of the State Government. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order to the extent that the same de hors the provision of Rule 14(vii) read with Explanation (vi) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as C.C.A. Rules, 2005) by imposing penalty from retrospective date. At the same time, petitioner has also sought quashing of the order to the extent that during the period of suspension, petitioner would not get anything except subsistence allowance. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Kishore Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, R.C.D. & Ors., reported in 2018(3) PLJR 805, in which learned Single Judge following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R. Jeeva Ratnam vs. the State of Madras reported in AIR 1966 SC 951 has finally c
