The single-judge bench of the Patna High Court held that the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint was lodged against the Petitioner, who was posted as the block education officer he was demanding Rs 50,000 for submitting a favorable report for the upgradation of a school. Thereafter, the trap was set up by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and the Petitioner was arrested along with a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which was taken by him as a bribe. The FIR was registered in Sections 7/13 (1-d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and on the same day, only the petitioner was taken into custody. Also, Petitioner was suspended by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. After the grant of bail, the suspension of the Petitioner was revoked, however, again suspended by the Director, in contemplation of initiation of departmental proceedings.
The five charges were leveled against the Petitioner, however, out of five charges four charges were not proved. Furthermore, the petitioner filed the writ application for a stay of the departmental proceeding pending the final disposal of the criminal trial. The application was disposed of and the second show cause notice was set aside. The Director issued a fresh second show cause notice to the petitioner with reasons of disagreement requiring him to submit the reply. The Petitioner filed the reply and denied all the charges. The Petitioner filed another service appeal which was disposed of and aggrieved by this, the Petitioner filed a writ application and the petitioner's order of dismissal was quashed and the respondent authorities were given the liberty to make a new decision after providing the Petitioner with a hearing on the matter of disagreement in accordance with Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.
The proceedings were converted under Section 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, and the show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted his reply denying all the allegations and the impugned order is challenged by way of filing of the present application.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that no witness was produced before the court for recording of the oral evidence and the inquiry report was submitted merely based on a reply filed by the presenting officer. Also, the contents of the documents i.e. the First Information Report, the sanction order, etc were not proved in the course of the inquiry. It was furthermore contended that In his second show cause, the Disciplinary Authority just restated the charges Nos. 1 and 2, which is why it is the point of contention noted in the inquiry report is not in compliance with Section 18 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005. At last, it was contended that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner violates the principles of natural justice.
Contentions of the State:
The state contended that the Petitioner was caught red-handed while taking a bribe because of which the case was instituted for corruption charges. It was also contended that the entire facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations of corruption and abuse of office were investigated in the departmental proceeding. Following the government policy of zero tolerance for corruption, the petitioner was punished because the officer in question was not deserving and a threat to good governance. In light of this, the decision to punish the petitioners by forfeiting their entire pension was made to rid the department of corrupt officers. Furthermore, it was contended that the principle of natural justice is dependent on relevant facts and circumstances; it is not a set formula. At last, it was contended that the petitioner was given the chance to present his defense, and the departmental proceeding was carried out in compliance with the law. After considering his defense and conducting a thorough investigation, the inquiry report was presented and the allegations were proven.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that it is a case of no evidence. Because no evidence was presented throughout the investigation in this case, the Disciplinary Authority's grounds for disagreeing with the inquiry officer's conclusions and his findings are similarly unsupported by any evidence.
No witness was questioned to support the documents, and the management simply submitted them. In this instance, the materials brought to light indicate that guilt must be established, any decision must be based on legally admissible evidence, and the accusation contained in the First Information Report simpliciter, unless supported by compelling evidence, cannot be accepted as evidence on its own.
It was noted that the Disciplinary Authority documented its findings on charges nos. 1 and 2 without any supporting documentation, either gathered during the investigation or at the time of documenting the grounds for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings. It also failed to record the valid reasons for disagreement.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there are serious procedural lapses at the stage of inquiry as well as at the stage of recording of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority. This is a case of no evidence. As such, the entire inquiry proceeding vitiates.
The Decision of the Court
With the above direction, the court set aside the order of punishment as well as the order of the Appellate Authority, imposing 100 per cent forfeiture of pension. The writ application was allowed.
Case Title: Sudeshwar Sah vs. The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2962 of 2021
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Mr. Kundan Kumar
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, Mr. Arvind Kumar,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
