Prem Ranjan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1847 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.737 of 2020
     ======================================================

Prem Ranjan Kumar aged about 62 years Son of Late Baidehi Sharan Verma R/o Flat No.- 301, Asha Kunj Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, Road No.3G, P.S.- Paliputra, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur-

cum-Inquiry Officer.

5. The District Co-operative Officer, West Champaran.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Balram Kapri, JC to SC 26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-04-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondents.

2. Writ petition has been filed for quashing order

contained in Memo No. 7092 dated 26.7.2019, issued under the

signature of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of

Bihar, Patna (respondent no.3), whereby and whereunder the

petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of

100% pension under Rules 43(b) and 139 of the Bihar Pension

Rules.

Patna High Court CWJC No.737 of 2020 dt.05-04-2021

3. Short facts giving rise to the writ petition is that at the

relevant time, petitioner was posted as Block Co-operative

Extension Officer cum In-charge, Purchase Center, Bagaha

Bagaha. However, in contemplation of departmental proceeding,

petitioner was suspended vide Letter No. 1404 dated 25.12.2016.

Charges were framed against him vide Letter No. 2554 dated

1.8.2016 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) for certain omission or

commission in procurement of paddy for the year 2012-13 for

which Bagaha (Bhairoganj) Police Station Case No. 120 of 2015

and 121 of 2015 were lodged against him and he was arrested on

25.9.2015. Show cause was asked and after considering reply of

the petitioner, charges were found proved and Enquiry Officer

found him guilty of grave misconduct. During pendency of the

proceeding, petitioner superannuated on 31.1.2017 as a result of

which departmental enquiry was converted under section 43(b) of

the Bihar Pension Rules vide Letter No.1872 dated 23.2.2017.

After submission of enquiry report, second show cause was asked

and after considering reply of the petitioner and the enquiry report,

final order of punishment of withholding of 100% pension was

passed vide order dated 26.7.2019 (Annexure-10).

4. The petitioner has challenged order of punishment on

various grounds including the ground of violation of principle of Patna High Court CWJC No.737 of 2020 dt.05-04-2021

Natural Justice. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in

spite of repeated demand made by the petitioner for supply of

documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer against the

petitioner during course of enquiry proceedings, the same was

never supplied to him. It is submitted that due to non supply of the

copies of these material documents, petitioner could not explain

the charges properly and as such he did not file effective and

wholesome reply to the show cause. This fact has also been noted

by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report. Learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner further submits that non supply of

documents which were used and relied upon by the Enquiry

Officer aginst the petitioner amounts to violation of principle of

Natural Justice and on this ground alone, the entire departmental

proceedings including the subsequent order of punishment dated

26.7.2019, contained in Annexure 10, passed upon the enquiry

report have vitiated and are liable to be quashed.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In

paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the

petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate

Authority which has not been exhausted by him and as such, the

instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that Patna High Court CWJC No.737 of 2020 dt.05-04-2021

after following all due procedure, order of punishment has been

passed.

6. One of the requirement of principle of Natural Justice

is to supply copies of documents to the petitioner which have been

relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in order to enable him to meet

the charges and to put valid defence. In the opinion of this Court,

non supply of these relevant documents to the petitioner has

resulted into violation of principle of Natural Justice and on this

ground alone, entire departmental proceeding including the

subsequent order of punishment have vitiated and are fit to be

quashed. In this case, Enquiry Officer has also admitted in the

enquiry report that certain documents demanded by the petitioner

had not been supplied to him. This contention of the petitioner has

also not been disputed or controverted by the respondents in the

counter affidavit. Moreover, there is no rule of law that the High

Court should not entertain writ petition where alternative remedy

of appeal is available with the aggrieved person. In this regard, law

is well settled that in case of allegation of violation of Principle of

Natural Justice or infringement of fundamental right, writ petition

is maintainable in spite of availability of appellate remedy to the

aggrieved person.

Patna High Court CWJC No.737 of 2020 dt.05-04-2021

7. In view of discussions made herein above, writ

petition is allowed and the entire departmental proceeding

including the punishment order dated 26.7.2019, contained in

Annexure 10, are quashed and set aside.

8. Since departmental proceeding and the order of

punishment have been quashed on ground of violation of principle

of Natural Justice, this matter is remanded to the resondents

authorities to move afresh against the petitioner afresh in

accordance with law and in tune with the principle of Natural

Justice.

9. So far as payment of other admitted retiral benefits

are concerned, petitioner is at liberty to make representation before

the respondents authorities which shall be disposed of by the

authorities in accordance with law.

                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Shashi
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          6.4.2021
Transmission Date       NA