CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 02-12-2024 The writ petitions are filed by the very same person; a retired District & Sessions Judge, against two different penalties imposed. We are hearing the matter together since the order impugned in CWJC No. 14896 of 2011 imposed a censure while the order impugned in CWJC No. 14897 of 2011 imposed a punishment of deferring the super-time scale as applicable to the petitioner for a period of one year from 21.10.2008. The petitioner while challenging the penalties also seek for conferring super time scale from the due date; the entitlement to which will be affected, probably, on whether the penalties imposed are upheld or not.

2. We take up CWJC No. 14897 of 2011, first for consideration since it challenges the order dated 07.12.2009 while the order challenged in the other writ petition is dated

13.04.2010.

3. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh in CWJC No. 14897 of 2011 and learned Counsel, Shri. Harsh Singh in CWJC No. 14896 of 2011 for the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court, appearing in both cases.

4. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner while designated as a Special Judge C.B.I. had conducted trial of the cases relating to the fodder scam and his conduct was appreciated by the Single Man Commission constituted by the Parliament to enquire into the allegations. The petitioner while he was posted as District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad had difficulty in attending Court on 11.02.2004 and wanted to perform his duties from home. The aforesaid practice was prevalent at that time and he made an application for ‘current duty’ to the Registrar General and the same was also informed to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Jehanabad who was designated to attend urgent applications of the District & Sessions Judge’s Court. The petitioner was subsequently informed that his aged mother had fallen sick and he had to rush to Patna. Since he had not informed the High Court about his leaving the station, he had come to the High Court at Patna to inform the Inspecting Judge who was attending an oath ceremony, which was scheduled on that day at the High Court of Patna.

5. Later an allegation petition was filed by one Navin Prakash, a fictitious person that the petitioner had misused the ‘current duty’ sought for and attended the oath ceremony in the Patna High Court and had later participated in the Lok Adalat and signed the orders in the cases heard by ADJ-I. The petitioner’s response was found to be unsatisfactory and he was proceeded departmentally with respect to the said allegation and also three other allegations. The three other allegations were found to be not proved. However, on the allegation of misuse of ‘current duty’, the petitioner was found guilty and imposed with the punishment of deferring the super-time scale for one year. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the there was none examined before the Enquiry Officer. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1302 of 2017 (Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Others) which had set aside the punishment in an enquiry; where no witness was examined, relying on Roop Singh Negi v.

Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the High Court argued with reference to the enquiry report and sought to sustain the punishment imposed.

7. The enquiry report is produced as Annexure-10 series. The specific charge against the petitioner was that the delinquent employee without taking permission to visit the High Court, clandestinely attended the oath ceremony of one of the Judges newly elevated on 11.02.2024 and returned to Jehanabad at about 2:00 P.M. to attend the Lok Adalat for Banks and also signed the court diary of that day and the order-sheet of the cases heard in the delinquent officer’s absence by the ADJ-I. The said acts were alleged to be in flagrant violat