Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
Dr. Janardan Prasad Sukumar, son of Jagdish Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11794 of 2023
Decided On : 20-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the petitioner's case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural irregularities in the enquiry process (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and procedural fairness (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final order and directions from the court (Para 16 , 18) |
| 5. entitlement to back wages and benefits after annulment of disciplinary action (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
(MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.)
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 28.10.2022, passed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 19.06.2023, issued under the Pen and Signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has stood rejected. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for reinstatement in service and payment of all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner had joined the service of the State Government in the year 1983 and thereafter, he has been rendering unblemished service to the satisfaction of all concerned. The petitioner is stated to have suddenly been placed under suspension, vide order dated 31.12.2021, in contemplation of initiation of departmental proceeding, whereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated qua the petitioner vide memo dated 15.02.2022. A charge- sheet in “Prapatra- Ka” dated 17.02.2022 was then served upon the petitioner, wherein five charges were levelled against the petitioner, which are being reproduced herein below:-
izi=&d
| vk0 la0 | vkjksi@ykaNu dk vfHkdFku |
| 1 | iqfyl v/kh{kd] ¼eq[;ky;½ izFke fMgjh] jksgrkl ds Kkikad& 914 fnukad& 29-12-2021 ds tkWap izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij ftyk inkf/kdkjh] jksgrkl] lklkjke ds i=kad& 3683@xks0 fnukad&30-12-2021 }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k fd ljdkjh dk;Zdze LokLF; foHkkx ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr dksfoM izksVksdkWy ds ikyu gsrq vki fnukad&23-12-2021 dks gksVy jksfgr bUnjus'kuy] lklkjke esa vkokflr FksA mDr frfFk dks jkf= 11%00 cts LFkkuh; iqfyl }kjk gksVy ds fofHkUu dejksa esa Nkisekjh dh x;hA Nkisekjh ds dze esa iqfyl }kjk dejk la0& 306 dks [kqyok;k x;k] ftlesa ,d O;fDr] ,d efgyk ,oa nks de mez dh yM+dh vkokflr ik;h x;hA vkids }kjk njokts [kksyus esa vuko';d foyac fd;k x;kA iqu% dejs [kksyus ds i'pkr vki dejk u0& 307 esa pys x,A dejk u0& 306 esa vkokflr efgyk }kjk crk;k x;k fd os vkidh laca/kh gSA tkWap ds dze esa muds uke@irk dh tkudkjh gksus ij ;g ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd mudh dFku fd os vkids laca/kh gSa] izFke n`"V;k xyr c;ku izrhr gksrk gS] D;ksafd mDr efgyk ,oa yM+fd;ksa dk uke dze'k% jkuh [kkrqu ¼mez& 35 o"kZ½ ifr& eks0 Qd:íhu eksgEen] lck [kkrqu] mez&14 o"kZ] :Dlkj mez&12 o"kZ gSA mDr efgyk ,oa nks yM+d+h dk jkf=dky esa vkids vkjf{kr dejsa esa vkokflr ik;k tkuk dgh u dgh vkids pfj=@ vkpj.k dks lafnX/k cukrk gSA vkidk ;g d`R; fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpkj fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e&3 ¼4½ esa fufgr izko/kkuksa ds izfrdwy gSA |
| 2 | iqfyl ds Nkisekjh ds nkSjku gksVy jksfgr bUVjus'kuy] lklkjke ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds Nkisekjh LFky ls pys tkuk rFkk iqfyl ds le{k czsFk ,sukykbZtj ds tkWap ds fy, miyC/k ugha gksuk Hkh vkids lafnx/k vkpj.k dks O;Dr djrk gSA lkFk gh lkFk iqfyl mik/kh{kd] ¼eq[;ky;½ izFke fMgjh jksgrkl ds Kkikad& 914 fnukad& 29-12-2021 }kjk lefiZr tkWap izfrosnu dks Hkh lgh lEiq"V djrk gSA vkidk ;g d`R; fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpkj fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e&4 esa fufgr izko/kkuksa ds izfrdwy gSA |
| 3 | gksVy jksfgr bUnjus'kuy] lklkjke ds dejk ua0& 306@307 vkids uke ls vkjf{kr Fkk ,oa iqfyl ds Nkisekjh ds nkSjku vki ogkWa vkoklhr Hkh ik, x,] ,sls esa dejk u0&306 ls ,d O;fDr u'ks dh gkyr esa ik, x, ,oa tsy Hksts x,A bl izdj.k ls Li"V ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd mDr dejk esa e|iku ,oa vU; fdz;kdyki fd;k tk jgk Fkk] mlds fy, vki izFke n`"V;k nks"kh izrhr gksrs gSA |
| 4 | izklafxd ekeys esa LFkkuh; Fkkuk esa izkFkfedh ntZ gksus ds mijkUr vkids |
The absence of a witness list in a disciplinary charge memo violates procedural fairness, rendering the proceedings invalid, necessitating adherence to natural justice principles.
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
Departmental enquiry quashed for violating rules by denying cross-examination opportunity, examining witnesses behind back with only signature proof, and failing to consider replies; remitted for fre....
Disciplinary proceedings require oral evidence for proving charges; failure to provide a witness list vitiates the inquiry, emphasizing adherence to natural justice standards.
The court ruled that failure to provide inquiry reports and examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions arbitrary and illegal.
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
