The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Minister Incharge-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, affirming the departmental order of punishment of the forfeiture of 100% pension, held that the trap memo was the only basic evidence whereupon reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer but the said trap memo was not proved.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had been working in the Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar from the 22nd of January, 1997. According to the Petitioner, on the basis of a false complaint alleged against him that he claimed illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- in order to issue a license in favor of Thela Vendor, the purported trap was conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. He was arrested and a vigilance case was registered against him. Subsequently, he was suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings. Upon inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment of dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of dismissal issued against the Petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority passed the final by which 100% pension and gratuity of the Petitioner has been forfeited.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the High Court had reminded at least twice the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority the way and manner in which a departmental proceeding is to be conducted. Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority took into account the observation of this Court to act accordingly.
The Court observed that the delinquent officer was punished on the basis of a vigilance trap memo. However, the vigilance trap memo by itself is not a piece of evidence unless and until the contents of the same are proved by the maker of the trap memo before the disciplinary proceeding. The trap memo was the only basic evidence whereupon reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer but the said trap memo was not proved.
The Court said that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority are not supported by any reason. As orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, proper reasons should have been assigned. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence that is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the orders of punishment of forfeiture of 100% pension of the Petitioner passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Umesh Kumar Sinha v The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6902 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
