Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, PARTHA SARTHY
Om Prakash Manjhi Son of late Lakshmi Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ application and the order of dismissal from service of the appellant was upheld.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that while posted as the Superintending Engineer, Work Circle, Siwan, an FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case no.145 of 2016 was registered against the appellant under sections 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘P.C. Act’ in short) alleging the appellant to have acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
4. On the Vigilance Department informing the Rural Works Department about the institution of the vigilance case, the appellant was placed under suspension on 13.1.2017 in exercise of powers under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘C.C.A. Rules’) and a departmental proceeding was decided to be initiated against him. The appellant was served with a chargesheet in Form ‘ka’ stating the
In departmental inquiries, documentary evidence can suffice to establish misconduct, particularly regarding disproportionate assets without the need for witness testimonies.
The charges against the petitioner did not constitute misconduct, and the finding of the enquiring authority was unsustainable due to lack of evidence and legal infirmity. The impugned order of dismi....
The court emphasized that the prosecution must accurately verify and establish facts regarding disproportionate assets before filing charges, stressing the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
In disciplinary inquiries, the standard of proof requires more than mere suspicion; due process must be observed, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.
Departmental misconduct charges require proof via witness examination on preponderance of probability; unproved complaint/arrest documents insufficient, warranting quashing of dismissal, with crimina....
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
