The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed challenging the final order of dismissal from service, dated 18th January 2023, passed by the Commissioner, by virtue of which the Petitioner was dismissed from the post of Revenue Clerk, held that there is a mark difference between a judicial proceeding and a departmental inquiry. In a judicial proceeding, a document cannot be marked exhibit without the contents thereto being proved by its maker or custodian.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was a Revenue Clerk. It came to the Petitioner's notice that the Circle Officer had mutated a government land in favor of some private persons. The Petitioner lodged a complaint against the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 2) and Additional Collector. As the Petitioner dared to lodge such a complaint against his immediate superior officers, he was placed under suspension. He submitted his explanation, but his explanation was not considered and the Inquiry Officer found guilty of the charges leveled against him. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of reserving liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Inquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority suffered from manifest arbitrariness, patent illegality, and violation of the principles of natural justice. He contended that he was not wilfully absent from the office, rather he was suffering from eye and kidney disease and had undergone medical treatment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner was rightly dismissed from service and there is no ground for interference over the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He argued that the departmental inquiry was conducted with impartiality and integrity.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Inquiry Officer held that the accused was not only negligent but purposefully made wrong records (mutation) in respect of different lands which are not capable of being mutated in the names of private persons.
The Court observed that while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal. There is no procedural error as alleged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. When a fact is proved on the basis of documentary evidence, the document speaks for itself and no amount of oral evidence is necessary in a departmental proceeding. There is a mark difference between a judicial proceeding and a departmental inquiry. In a judicial proceeding, a document cannot be marked exhibit without the contents thereto being proved by its maker or custodian.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the Petitioner was rightly punished in the departmental inquiry.
Case Title: Din Bandhu Pandey v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4903 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vikalp
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Khurshid Alam
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
