Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KUMAR MANISH, J.
CWJC No. 15061 of 2018
(8.9.2026)
Upendra Das ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Act Referred
BIHAR JAIL MANUAL : R.870(ii)
Headnote
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 17 – Dismissal from service – Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited – Court does not sit as appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible – Interference is, however, warranted where enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with prescribed procedure, where principles of natural justice have been violated, where finding is based on no evidence or inadmissible material, where relevant material has been ignored, or where conclusion is so arbitrary that it could not have been reached by a reasonable authority. (Paras 14 and 15)
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 17 – Rule 870(ii) of Bihar Jail Manual – Dismissal from service – Disciplinary authority is mandated to provide delinquent employee with definite statement of imputations of misconduct, accompanied by specific list of documents and list of witnesses by whom articles of charge are proposed to be sustained – Department did not examine any material witnesses – By merely tendering documents without oral examination or cross examination, Inquiry Officer based the findings on legally inadmissible evidence, rendering entire proceeding and subsequent penalty, arbitrary, procedurally flawed, and legally unsustainable – Mere production or tendering of a document does not, by itself, prove its contents where contents require proof through a witness – Requirement of reasons assumes significance particularly where a major punishment is imposed – Respondents have not demonstrated as to how Rule 870(ii) was applicable to petitioner – Burden of establishing charge lies upon Department – It is not for delinquent to prove his innocence as a condition precedent to department establishing misconduct – Impugned order quashed and set aside. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 29, 31 and 36)
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – Standard applicable in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Nevertheless, preponderance of probabilities must arise from some relevant and admissible material – Suspicion arising from occurrence of an escape cannot substitute proof of individual misconduct, particularly when record itself points to deficiencies in overall security arrangements – Appeal against a major punishment is required to be considered meaningfully – Where specific grounds are raised challenging legality of enquiry, absence of evidence, applicability of relevant rule and proportionality of punishment, appellate authority ought to deal with those grounds by recording reasons – Mere affirmation without meaningful consideration would not satisfy requirement of fair decision-making process. (Paras 33 and 34)
For the Petitioner: M/s Siddhartha Prasad, Sunit Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Md. Irshad, A.C. to S.C.-1.
Kumar Manish, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
2. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking interalia for the following reliefs: –
i. Quashing the order contained in Memo No. 468 dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Inspector General, Prison and Correctional Services, Bihar, whereby the petitioner, a Warder posted at Central Jail, Buxar, has been dismissed from service;
ii. Quashing the appellate order contained in Memo No. 3992 dated 14.06.2018 whereby his appeal has been rejected and the punishment of dismissal has been affirmed;
iii. Quashing of the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner including the enquiry report as the same being based on no evidence;
iv. Any other reliefs which the Petitioner is entitled to.
3. Brief facts emerging from the pleadings are that the petitioner was posted as a Warder at Central Jail, Buxar and was functioning as Dafa Incharge of the North Cycle. During the intervening night of 30/31.12.2016, five prisoners escaped from Ward No. 29 of the jail between about 12:00 A.M. and 03:00 A.M.
The allegation against the petitioner was that, despite being on duty in the concerned area, he failed to notice the breaking of the window/wall and the escape of the prisoners and that such negligence and dereliction of duty facilitated the escape of the said prisoners.
4. The petitioner was suspended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Buxar vide Memo No. 4466 dated 31.12.2016. An FIR/report regarding the incident was also lodged/submitted. A joint report of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Buxar dated 31.12.2016, as well as a report of the two-member departmental committee dated 02.01.2017, were relied upon in the matter.
The petitioner has placed reliance upon these reports to contend that the jail suffered from serious security and infrastructural deficiencies, including inadequate lighting/electricity and shortage of guards, and that no specific lapse attributable to the Petitioner was identified.
5. A charge was thereafter framed. The petitioner has specifically contended that the initial memo of charge dated 08.02.2017 was issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Buxar, who was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, and was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General, Prison and Correctional Services.
The petitioner relies upon Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, and contends that the prescribed procedure for initiation of a proceeding for major punishment was not strictly complied with.
6. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations and explaining, inter alia, the electricity problem, the condition of the jail, his allocation of duties and the manner in which he had been performing rounds.
An Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed vide Memo No. 957 dated 03.03.2017. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to Deputy Inspector General, Prison and Correctional Services, vide letter dated 12.09.2017. Thereafter a second show-cause notice having memo no. 6045 dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure – 11 to the writ petition), was issued to the Petitioner, to which the reply was submitted and filed by the Petitioner (Annexure 12 to the writ petition).
7. It is by Memo No. 468 dated 19.01.2018, the Inspector General, Prison and Correctional Services, Bihar imposed the major punishment of “dismissal from service”. upon the Petitioner (Annexure – 13 of the writ petition).
Assailing the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 21/22.02.2018. The same was rejected vide Memo No. 3992 dated 14.06.2018. Hence, the present writ petition (Annexure – 15 to the writ petition).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry is fundamentally vitiated, since the charge was held proved without examination of material witnesses and without proving the contents of the documents relied
