Manoj Kumar Bansal, Son of Late Sh. Brij Bhushan Bansal vs State of Himachal Pradesh through the Chief Secretary Financial Commissioner-Cum-Home Secretary

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(HP) 766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ravi Malimath, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Bansal, Son of Late Sh. Brij Bhushan Bansal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through the Chief Secretary Financial Commissioner-Cum-Home Secretary and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 4594 of 2010
Decided On : 09-09-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sh. Amar Vivek Aggarwal and Sh. Rajesh K. Parmar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General With Sh. Ranjan Sharma, Smt. Ritta Goswami, Sh. Vikas Rathore, Additional Advocates General And Smt. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Smt. Shalini Thakur, Advocate

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226/227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 451/351/427/506 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 3(i)(ii), 14, 15(2) – Petitioner, a judicial officer, after culmination of disciplinary proceedings, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him in year 2000 - Pursuant to interim order passed in petitions filed by him, petitioner continued to serve - Litigations reached Hon’ble Apex Court - Subsequently another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against petitioner in year 2005, whereunder he was compulsorily retired - In instant petition, petitioner has called in question second disciplinary proceedings & orders passed thereunder - Complainant had spoken to judicial officer about his and his brother’s case pending in Chopal Court - That judicial officer told him that he would decide cases in his favour and that of his brother but complainant shall have to work for him till he remained posted at Chopal - That complainant fell sick and could not go to work for judicial officer - That on request of officer, he sent his brother to work for two days - That his brother had to leave for home due to domestic compulsion - Upon this, judicial officer got infuriated - He started threatening complainant on telephone for not coming to work - That officer also threatened to convict his brother in pending case, not to decide cases in their favour and that he would get cases framed against him from police – Held, power of judicial review, of Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of decision making process and not merits of decision itself - If conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where conclusions upon consideration of evidence reached by disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued - Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of Constitution would not interfere with findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support conclusion arrived at by departmental authority, same has to be sustained - Inquiry was held by competent authority - It was held according to procedure prescribed in law - There was no violation of principles of natural justice - Findings of disciplinary authority are based on evidence - Disciplinary authority did not consider any inadmissible evidence in reaching its conclusion - Authority in reaching conclusion was not guarded by any irrelevant or extraneous consideration - Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioner was a judicial officer. After culmination of disciplinary proceedings, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him in the year 2000. Pursuant to interim order passed in the petitions filed by him, petitioner continued to serve. Litigations reached the Hon’ble Apex Court. Subsequently another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2005, whereunder he was compulsorily retired on 10.06.2010. In the instant petition, petitioner has called in question the second disciplinary proceedings & the orders passed thereunder.

2 Facts:

2(i) Petitioner joined Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service on 23.02.1987. He faced departmental proceedings culminating in imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement upon him on 22.09.2000. Respondent No.3 the then District and Sessions Judge, Shimla was the inquiry officer in the inquiry proceeding. In his inquiry report, he held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were established. CWP No.943/2000 filed by the petitioner in respect of this disciplinary proceeding was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Petitioner was exonerated from all the charges. In LPA No.50/2004 filed by respondent No.2 (High Court), the operation of judgment passed by learned Single Judge was stayed by an interim order dated 13.12.2004. The interim order was stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 04.03.2005 in Special Leave Petition No.3982/2005 filed by the petitioner. As a result whereof the petitioner continued to serve. This SLP was disposed of on 10.01.2008 with a direction that interim order dated 04.03.2005 shall remain in force till the disposal of LPA No.50/2004 by the High Court. LPA No.50/2004 was eventually partly decided in favour of the petitioner on 09.01.2009. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge was modified regarding two charges which were held to be partly proved by enquiry officer. Respondent No.2 filed Civil Appeal No.1185/2012 against this judgment. The civil Appeal was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.02.2020, inter alia keeping in view the compulsorily retirement of the petitioner in the interregnum in another disciplinary proceedings (impugned herein).

2(ii) While the petitioner was posted at Chopal, District Shimla, respondent No.2 received a complaint against him from one Sh. Vipin Lal Clerk of Sh. Balbir Singh, Advocate, Chopal. This complaint was dated 08.10.2005. The complainant levelled charges of exploitation and abuse of power by the petitioner. The details of this complaint are not being referred to at this stage for sake of brevity. Upon receipt of complaint, a discreet inquiry was ordered by respondent No.2 on 26.11.2005. Respondent No.3 the then District and Sessions Judge Shimla was directed to hold the discreet inquiry. Simultaneously, petitioner’s comments to the complaint were also called for. Respondent No.3 conducted the discreet inquiry. He recorded statement of the complainant on 29.12.2005. Certain documents submitted by the complainant were also taken into possession by the Discreet Inquiry Officer. Discreet inquiry report was submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 03.01.2006. Respondent No.3 in his discreet inquiry report found substance in the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

2(iii) Upon consideration of all aspects, the Full Court on 14.07.2006 resolved to charge-sheet the petitioner for major penalty. Memo of charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 26/27.09.2006 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [in short CCS (CCA) Rules]. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 07.10.2006 and supplementary written statement on 18.10.2006. Petitioner denied all the charges. Matter was considered by the Full Court on 21.03.2007. It was decided to hold regular inquiry against the petitioner. Sh. R.L. Raghu, the then District & Sessions Judge Shimla was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 13.4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(HP) 766

Cases Referred (13)