Procedural irregularities in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate subsequent disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellants (writ respondents) have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.9.2023 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow CWJC no.7586 of 2013 filed by the respondent (writ petitioner), quash the order of punishment as also the inquiry report and hold the respondent entitled to full back wages along with admissible consequential benefits.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent was placed under suspension and proceeded against departmentally on 19.3.2009 with respect to two charges which pertained to the period from 9.5.2005 to 14.10.2005 when he was posted as the Block Development Officer, Block Palasi, District Araria. The first charge related to opening of Bank account in Dehti PACS, in contravention of the guidelines issued by the State Government and deposit of Rs. 172.2 lacs. The other charge related to misuse of the said amount. The respondent filed his reply to the charges. An inquiry report dated 12.11.2009 was submitted finding the charge relating to opening of Bank account to be proved, however, the second charge relating to misuse of the amount was not proved.

4. It further transpires that the appellants issued an amended memo of charge on 12.7.2010 and a de novo inquiry was initiated. The amended memo of charge also contained two charges which were with respect to the respondent having deposited a sum of Rs. 1.72 crores with Dehti PACS in account no. 14 of 2004 and a second charge being of the respondent of having misused the said amount for personal gain. In the inquiry report submitted on 30.3.2011, both the charges were found to be proved. A second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent to which he replied. Thereafter, the order of punishment dated 24.2.2012 dismissing the respondent from service was passed which was challenged by the respondent by filing CWJC no. 7586 of 2013. The writ application having been allowed by judgment dated 5.9.2023, as stated above, the instant appeal has been preferred against the same.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate and consider that the respondent had violated the clear instructions and guidelines mentioned in the Sunischit Gramin Rojgar Yojna (SGRY) and had wilfully and deliberately opened an account in Dehti PACS instead of a nationalised bank. Having deposited a sum of Rs. 172.2 lacs in between 16.5.2005 and 30.8.2005, the respondent had misused the money and the said charge had also been proved in the departmental proceeding. It was further submitted that the charges are serious and the learned Single Judge in interfering with the order of punishment had erred. It was thus prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

6. In response, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appellants could not have proceeded with a de novo inquiry after submission of the inquiry report dated 12.11.2009. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 19.1.2023 passed by this Court in LPA no. 1653 of 2016 (The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Md. Shamim Akhtar & Anr.) as also on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanailal Bera vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 11 SCC 517]. It was submitted that in view of the ratio of the judgments as mentioned herein ab