The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed for issuing an order to quash the order impugned whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the Post of Assistant Engineer in the lowest pay scale, held that when the charge sheet/charge memo has not been approved by the disciplinary authority and is nonest in law, then the entire departmental proceeding including the inquiry, final order, and reviewing order are also nonest in the eyes of the law.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. In the year 2007, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, which is a Class-I Gazetted Post. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, which subsequently resulted in punishment, and against the final order of punishment, he challenged the punishment order in review and, thereafter, moved before this Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said charge memo was issued by a person who is not competent to issue a charge memo to the petitioner as he is not the appointing authority. He argued that only obtaining consent for the issuance of departmental proceedings is not proper; rather full consent with regard to the application of mind at the time of issuance of the charge memo by the appointing authority is necessary.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed due to the reason that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court did not interfere in the original order and only directed the Reviewing Authority to pass the order afresh. He argued that the decision of initiation of departmental proceedings was made by Hon’ble the Chief Minister and subsequently the punishment order was passed by the Governor. Therefore, this order is sustainable in the eye of the law and the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the impugned order indicates that on-charge memo approval has already been taken by the competent authority who is the Hon’ble Chief Minister.
The Court observed that the approval granted by the Hon’ble the Chief Minister for initiation of the departmental proceedings would not amount to approval of the charge memo and, hence, due to the reasons mentioned above, the charge memo issued against the petitioner is defective and once the charge memo is defective, then automatically the entire proceeding is bad-in-law as in this regard. When the charge sheet/charge memo has not been approved by the disciplinary authority and is nonest in law, then the entire departmental proceeding including the inquiry, final order, and reviewing order are also nonest in the eyes of the law.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that orders dated 30.05.2013, review order dated 07.06.2019, and charge memo dated 02.07.2009 are hereby quashed.
Case Title: Praween Kumar v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dr. Anshuman
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2730 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samrendra
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Raj Ballabh Pd. Yadav
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
