Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Poonam Prasad, W/o. Late Navin Kumar Verma - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 117 of 2022
Decided On : 06-10-2023
Enquiry Officer - Departmental Proceeding - Rule 55 of the Conduct Rules - 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46
Fact of the Case:
The court examined a departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 55 of the Conduct Rules against a public servant. The enquiry officer found the charge proved but suggested further enquiry, leading to a conclusion that the enquiry report was inconclusive. The court also considered issues related to the report of the Departmental Flying Squad Team, non-examination of witnesses, applicability of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, and the delay in concluding the proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry report was inconclusive, based on the report of the Departmental Flying Squad Team, and lacked independent observation. It also noted the absence of examination of witnesses and the failure to assess pecuniary loss. The court concluded that the power of judicial review should be exercised in this case and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the inconclusive nature of the enquiry report, reliance on the report of the Departmental Flying Squad Team, non-examination of witnesses, applicability of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, and the delay in concluding the proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enquiry report should be based on independent findings, not reliant on the report of the Departmental Flying Squad Team. It emphasized the need for examination of witnesses and the assessment of pecuniary loss. The court also highlighted the importance of providing the opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee in a departmental proceeding.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the power of judicial review should be exercised in the case due to the inconclusive nature of the enquiry report and other procedural irregularities.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed for the following relief :
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:
The writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 19.03.1979 and after Bihar Reorganization Act, the writ petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in the Waterways Division, Dhurwa, Ranchi on 04.01.2005.
The office of the Superintendent Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Circle-2, Water Resources Department, Ranchi wrote a letter to Chief Engineer being Letter No. 336 dated 31.03.2006 whereby, sanction had been granted for the Waterways Division, Ranchi for the project of the year 2005-06. Thereafter, the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has issued a Purchase Order No. 13 dated 30.03.2006 to M/s Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ltd. through M/s Data Tech for the supply and installation of Lenovo/IBM make computers and peripherals along with other required accessories for the various offices under the Water Resources Department. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has issued another Purchase Order No. 12 dated 30.03.2006 to M/s H.P. India Pvt. Ltd. through M/s Sigma Computers for the supply and installation of HP make computers and peripherals along with other required accessories for the various offices under the Water Resources Department and the Director, Purchase and Transport, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has issued a Purchase Order No.12/Pur-023/2005-07 dated 25.03.2006 to M/s Apex Corporation for supply & installation of Paper Fax Machine with suitable Stabilizer (Model No.L-220) for various offices under Water Resources Department.
Thereafter, various consignments were received on different dates through M/s Data Tech and installed in the offices and all the products received in good working condition by the concerned competent authorities of various offices of Water Resource Department.
Thereafter, a letter was received from the office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar to M/s Data Tech Services stating that the Laptop (Lenovo 3000 C 100) supplied by them is not functioning properly and in respect of which, steps were taken for removing the problem. Similarly, from the office of Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur a letter was received stating that the Note Book Computer supplied by M/s Data Tech was not functioning and thereafter, a Buff Sheet dated 31.08.2006 was issued by the Private Secretary to Minister, Water Resources Department to the Secretary, Water Resources Department stating therein that the computers and laptop received are faulty and not functioning, therefore, inquiry should be conducted by the Departmental Flying Squad.
In view of the above, inquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the Departmental Flying Squad vide letter no.522 dated 04.11.2006 wherein certain irregularities were found in purchase of laptop
The court ruled that failure to provide inquiry reports and examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions arbitrary and illegal.
Disciplinary proceedings against government employees must be conducted fairly, based on adequate evidence, and require reasoned decisions to uphold the principles of natural justice.
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
