Continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond a court-specified time frame without requesting an extension violates procedural fairness and is invalid.

ORDER :

ANANDA SEN, J.

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to quash Resolution dated 04.03.2024 contained in Memo No. 1066(S) whereby proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the BIHAR PENSION RULES have been instituted. Further he prays for declaration that the departmental proceeding which was not concluded within the time frame as fixed by the Court vide order dated 03.11.2020 passed in WP(S) No. 1599 of 2014 be declared nonest in the eye of law and any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules would be time barred and hit by law of limitation. He also prays for payment of arrears of salary.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Resolution dated 04.03.2024 is bad and the departmental proceeding could not have been converted to the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. It is his case once the Hon’ble High Court in WP(S) No. 1599 of 2014 vide order dated 03.11.2020 had fixed the time frame to conclude the department proceeding, no proceeding would have been continued beyond the said time frame nor the said could have been converted into that of one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. He relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in “ Yamuna Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Others ” reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 407. He further argues that on the facts, none of the conditions as laid down under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is fulfilled. Thus no proceeding can be initiated.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that admittedly there was time framed by the High Court but the said could not be complied with but still then in a bonafide manner the proceeding proceeded and after superannuation of the petitioner the same is being converted and there is no illegality in the same.

4. From the arguments of the parties, I find that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 05.01.1988 and was promoted in January 1993 as Assistant Engineer. A departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner on the allegation of a road being defective designed. A criminal proceeding was also instituted. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 vide Memo No. 2516 dated 12.05.2010 and article of charge and imputation in Schedule-Ka was issued to the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is as follows:

“(a) The G.S.B. component work for the 6-Lane Approach Road has not been in consonance with the specification.

(b) The W.B.M. Grade-II and Grade-III work and the B.M . Work had also not been done in accordance with the specification as there are deficiencies in the same.

(c) The various components of the road beneath the bituminous layer had not been in accordance with the specification.

(d) The bills for payment to the Contractor had been forwarded by the petitioner negligently.

(e) The petitioner has been acting in violation to the Government Servants Conduct Rules 1976 and had been favouring the Contractor.”

5. The petitioner claimed that relevant documents were not supplied to him which caused prejudice to him and the entire process was in violation of principle of natural justice. On 20.04.2011 the petitioner was served with a copy of the inquiry report and the second show cause notice seeking reply as to why not punishment of dismissal be imposed upon him. The petitioner replied that he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself in absence of the papers and was not afforded sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witness. Ultimately on 14.12.2011 vide Memo No. 832