Sharda Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3218 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21514 of 2018
     ======================================================

Sharda Chaudhary Son of Late Parmeshwar Chaudhary Resident of Village- Beri, Police Station- Salaiya, in the District of Aurangabad, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar

3. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical P.H.E.D Govt. of Biha, Patna

4. The Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D Sasaram Circle Sasaram

5. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D, Bhabhua Division, Bhabhua ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jagannath Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal -Sc4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-07-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondents.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed in

departmental proceeding in a trap, petitioner was apprehended and

thereafter respondents have decided to initiate a departmental

proceeding.

It is the contention of the petitioner that before inflicting

major punishment in a case where the departmental proceeding is

pending, it was incumbent upon the respondent to prove the charges in

the departmental proceeding but neither any witness was examined nor

any document was proved and till date no finding was recorded by the

respondents about the guilt of the petitioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.21514 of 2018 dt.09-07-2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents have issued second show cause notice but they have not

enclosed the copy of the enquiry report. In para 18 to the counter

affidavit the respondents have made following statement for ready

reference, which is quoted below:

"18. That the contention of the petitioner is that he has not been supplied the copy of the enquiry report is not sustainable in the eyes of law, since the petitioner in his reply to 2 nd show cause never raise such objection that he has not been supplied copy of enquiry report. The petitioner also did not raise the objection that he has not been supplied such documents he has demanded during the departmental proceeding."

It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has

not raised issue in the second show cause reply and therefore he has not

been supplied such document.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the

petitioner has not raised the issue of non-supply of the documents on

which the charges have been framed. He has also not raised the issue of

non-supply of inquiry report. It has been decided by the Apex Court in

case of Union of India Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan reported in A.I.R. 1991

SC 471.

In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of

Union of India Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan reported in A.I.R. 1991 SC 471

the order inflicting the punishment cannot be sustained. It is accordingly

quashed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.21514 of 2018 dt.09-07-2021

The matter is remitted back for fresh decision from the

stage of issuing second show cause notice enclosing inquiry report.

Petitioner shall be liberty to raise the issue of non

examination of any witness including the witness in the trap case

during course of departmental proceeding or any documentary

evidence in course of departmental proceeding which is mandatory

in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Kumaon Mandal

Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. reported in

(2001) 1 SCC182.

In view of the above, the order of dismissal is quashed.

The matter is remitted back for decision afresh.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) rakhi/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date
Transmission Date