Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Brahamanand Pandey, Son of Late Sagar Pandey and Anr. – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 299 of 2023
Decided On : 16-04-2024
[NATURAL JUSTICE] - [DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS] - [Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, Rule 55-A; Indian Penal Code, Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)] - [The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice in departmental proceedings, particularly the right to a fair hearing and the provision of relevant documents. The court interpreted Rule 55-A of the Civil Services Rules, which mandates that no penalty should be imposed without giving the employee an opportunity to make representations. The failure to provide such opportunities led to the quashing of the punishment order against the writ petitioner.]
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a retired Executive Engineer, was subjected to a departmental proceeding based on a criminal case where he was not initially named as an accused. However, he was later included without sufficient evidence. The departmental proceedings were criticized for not providing necessary documents and for being vague, leading to a punishment that included a reduction in pay and recovery of amounts from his pension.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Single Judge found that the principles of natural justice were violated during the departmental proceedings, as the writ petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself, nor were relevant documents provided. This led to the conclusion that the punishment was unjustified and thus quashed the order.
Issues: Whether the departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner violated the principles of natural justice, and whether the punishment imposed was justified given the lack of evidence and opportunity to defend.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a violation of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing and access to relevant documents, invalidates the outcome of departmental proceedings. The court referenced established legal principles that require disciplinary authorities to provide adequate opportunities for representation before imposing penalties.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision to quash the punishment order and directing the disbursement of the amounts recovered from the writ petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 210 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 29.09.2015 contained in Memo No. 6795(S) has been quashed and set aside with a direction to disburse the amount already recovered holding the respondent/writ petitioner entitled to get all the consequential benefits pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The writ-petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1981 under National Rural Employment Programme (N.R.E.P.) scheme under the Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar.
On 27.06.1987, the petitioner and several others were upgraded / appointed as Assistant Engineer. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petitioner and others were being regularized and treated as regular employees from 1981 itself, with all consequential benefits and finally the petitioner retired as substantive Executive Engineer, Central Design Organization, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, w.e.f. 30.09.2015.
That sometime in 2004, while the writ petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Organization, Rural Works Sub Division, Chatra, a work for construction of road from Karma to Mahudi was allotted to one Savitri Construction, Manjhgawan, Itkhori, Chatra and one M/s. Vijay Kumar Singh, Jaiprakash Nagar, Itkhori, Chatra on 50:50 basis.
After about 5 years of the completion of work, one F.I.R. No. R.C.05(A)/2010 (R) dated 16.02.2010 was registered for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 120 (B), 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against 1. Ratneshwar Rai, the then Executive Engineer, R.W.D., Chatra, 2. M/s Savitri Construction, Manjhgawan, Itkhori, Chatra, and 3. Unknown others for alleged irregularity and illegality committed in the matter of procurement of Bitumen by play of certain Bitumen Challans, appertaining to aforesaid road.
The writ petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. however in final investigation report submitted by the C.B.I. on 13.06.2011, the writ petitioner was also roped as accused along with Executive Engineer and the partners of M/s. Savitri Construction without any material basis whatsoever. Consequently, cognizance was taken by the Court of Learned Spl. Judge C.B.I., Dhanbad on transfer from the Court of Spl. Judge, CBI Ranchi.
The respondents/appellant constituted one parallel departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Resolution no.9181 (S) dated 04.10.2013 within the meaning of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930.
The said memo of charge itself was defective and illegal beside vague and nonspecific. The same was not accompanied with the statement of allegation as well as separate memo of documentary and oral witnesses.
The enquiry officer submitted one enquiry report which was served upon the writ petitioner along with purported second show cause notice dated 28.03.2014 issued under the Signature of Deputy. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand but without supply of relevant records.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the order dated 24.01.2014 will also show that merely on the basis of the F.I.R. and the submission of Charge Sheet, the petitioner has been declared guilty by conjecture and surmise and therefore the whole proceeding right from the stage of framing of charge to submission of aforesaid report/order followed by issuance of mechanical second show cause notice stands vitiated in law, as being not only violative of respondents circular dated 26.12.2012, but also being in teeth of authoritati
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, including giving the delinquent officer an opportunity t....
In disciplinary proceedings, the authority imposing penalties must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings and allowing the employe....
Non-observance of the principle of natural justice due to delayed supply of charge-sheet and relevant documents, and the violation of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule....
Departmental proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, and acquittal in criminal cases does not preclude disciplinary action but requires proper evidence examination.
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
