Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ, Partha Sarthy, J.
Srikant Singh, Son of Late Yamuna Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.58 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7151 of 2015
Decided On : 03-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shikharmani Advocate Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Vikas Kumar, AC to AG
Termination based solely on documents without witness examination violates principles of natural justice, necessitating a fair enquiry process.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 - Rule 43(b) - Termination of service - The appellant's termination was quashed due to lack of evidence in the disciplinary enquiry, which relied solely on documents without witness examination - The court directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted. (Paras 2, 8, 9)
(B) Natural Justice - The court reaffirmed that denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend against allegations necessitates a remand for a proper enquiry, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged his termination based on a trap case, where no witnesses were examined during the enquiry, leading to a finding of guilt based solely on documents.
Findings of Court:
The court found the disciplinary enquiry flawed due to the absence of witness examination and ruled that the appellant should be reinstated with all benefits.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the disciplinary enquiry and the necessity of witness examination in establishing misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere document production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of misconduct, emphasizing the need for a fair enquiry process.
Result: Appeal allowed, reinstatement ordered.
JUDGMENT :
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.
The appellant was the writ petitioner, who challenged his termination based on a trap case. Though disciplinary proceeding was initiated, no witness was examined and the enquiry found the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct based merely on the documents produced by the Presenting Officer.
2. The learned Single Judge found that there is a prima facie case for grant of relief, insofar as quashing of the termination order dated 16.12.2014, produced as Annexure-13. While setting aside the impugned order, the matter was referred back to the Disciplinary Authority/State Government with liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry with reference to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950; since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation when the writ petition was disposed of. The learned Single Judge relied on ECIL v. B.Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Prabhat Kumar, 2022 Live Law SC 736.
3. The appellant is aggrieved with the remand made, which, according to the appellant, cannot be sustained. The appellant relies on the judgments of this Court in Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 3890 and LPA No. 389 of 2024, titled as Ram Lagan Ram vs. The State of Bihar disposed of on 06.08.2024. The appellant also relies on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570.
4. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, pointed out that Roop Singh Negi (supra) specifically found that examination of witnesses is not an inviolable rule and that it would depend on the facts of each case. It is argued that the appellant is a person who was involved in a trap case where he had made a demand for bribe and was caught red handed while accepting it. Such a person cannot be allowed to go scot-free for technical reasons and in the above circumstance, the remand made is perfectly in order. Much reliance is placed on Prabhat Kumar (supra), which was relied on by the learned Single Judge also.
5. We have considered the issue, specifically looking at Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 and the Constitution Bench decision in B.Karunakar (supra) in LPA No. 446 of 2024, titled as The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Vikash Kumar dated 21.08.2024. Therein also, the learned Advocate General specifically sought for a remand to the Disciplinary Authority; when, in the enquiry carried out, it was again a case of no evidence. This very Division Bench held so in Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, which are extracted as below:-
“8. The decisions in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 and ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727; considered the issue of denial of reasonable opportunity, when the enquiry report was not supplied to the delinquent employee; after the 42nd amendment of the Constitution of India. Before the 42nd amendment of the Constitution, there was a requirement to issue notice to the delinquent employee to show-cause against the punishment proposed, for which a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed was a mandatory condition under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The 42nd amendment removed the above condition and it was the contention of the employers that there was no requirement to supply the enquiry report. It was categorically held that whenever the Enquiry Officer is someone other than the Disciplinary Authority and the report of the Enquiry Officer holds the employee guilty of all or any of the charges; with proposal for any punishment or not, the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the report to enable him to make a representation to the Disciplinary Authority against the findings in the report.
9. The non-furnishing of the report, hence amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; in which context a remand is necessitated, to supply the enquiry report and afford a reasonable opportu
