Ashok Kumar vs Bihar State Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5472 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19432 of 2014
     ======================================================

Ashok Kumar S/o Late Ram Swaroop Singh Resident of Village Nawada Bichla O.P. Mubarakpur, P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Ors

2. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Paiwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Pat

3. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Pat

4. Traffic Manager Head Office Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Pat

5. The Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna Division, Patna.

6. Divisional Statical Officer-cum-Enquiry Officer Departmental Proceeding Bihar State Road Transport

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. V.R.P.Singh, Advocate
                              :       Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s     :       Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma
                              :       Mr. L.K. Tiwari.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-11-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for

the State.

In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for following

relief/reliefs:

"i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order of dismissal issued vide office order no. 362 Patna dated 11.07.2012, Memo no. 6144 dated 11.07.2012 and office order issued vide memo no. 9629 dated 08.11.2012 passed by respondent no. 2.

ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order of rejection of appeal/representation Patna High Court CWJC No.19432 of 2014 dt.24-11-2021

dated 01.08.2014 against the order of dismissal by letter no. 3057 issued vide memo No. 3057 dated 05.09.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 and communicate by respondent no. 3.

iii) For a direction on the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and pay the consequential benefits immediately and also grant compensation for wrongful dismissal."

Petitioner while working with respondent-transport corporation

was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in framing article of charges

on 28.06.2004. Petitioner submitted reply on 28th November, 2004.

Disciplinary Authority dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner

proceeded to hold enquiry. The Enquiring Officer submitted his report

on 24.12.2006 holding that charges levelled against the petitioner were

proved. In the result second show cause notice was issued on

15.04.2008 and, thereafter, petitioner was dismissed from service on

11.07.2012 by the administrator. As on 11.07.2012, the State

Government appointed administrator to the corporation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that enquiry

proceedings were not held in accordance with law. It is submitted that

petitioner's reply has not been taken into consideration while passing

order of dismissal. Higher authority has passed the order of dismissal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the corporation submitted

that petitioner was subjected to article of four charges namely for

remaining unauthorized absence for a period of four months, he had

wrongly fixed pay of an employee which has affected the corporation.

Further, petitioner has failed to hand over the charge as and when he

was transferred in other words, he has disobeyed the orders of the Patna High Court CWJC No.19432 of 2014 dt.24-11-2021

corporation while giving effect to a transfer. It is further submitted that

petitioner has failed to file his reply to the show cause notice.

Remaining unauthorized absence for a period of four months would be

a serious charge and it affect the respondent corporation, therefore,

there is no infirmity in the order of dismissal. It is further submitted

that State Government has appointed administrator as a corporation

which is the highest authority. Therefore, there is no infirmity in

passing of dismissal order by the administrator on 11.07.2012.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was an employee of the

respondent corporation. While he was in service, he was subjected to

the disciplinary proceedings on 28.06.2004 and it was concluded in

imposition of penalty of dismissal of service on 11.07.2012. The

petitioner has rendered about 20 years of service with the respondent

corporation.

Perusal of the article of charges read with the finding of the

Enquiring Officer's, there is no misappropriation of respondent

corporation fund or money. Therefore, what remains is remaining

unauthorized absence for a period of four months which has affected

the respondent corporation.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has rendered 20

years of service with the petitioner corporation, imposition of dismissal

from service would be too harsh and such a punishment has shocked

the conscious of this Court, therefore, this Court is of the view to Patna High Court CWJC No.19432 of 2014 dt.24-11-2021

modify the order of penalty of dismissal to that of compulsory

retirement. However, Apex Court time and again held that in respect of

modification of any penalty order, the Courts are required to remind the

matter to the competent authority to modify the penalty. In the present

case, dismissal order dated as 11.07.2012 and we are in the year 2021,

therefore, it is not appropriate to remind the matter for re-consideration

of penalty.

Accordingly, order of dismissal dated 11.07.2012 is treated as

petitioner was retired as compulsory as a measure of penalty. The

concerned respondent corporation is hereby directed to settle the

petitioner's retirement benefits as if he has been retired compulsorily

with effect from 11.07.2012.

The aforesaid monetary benefits shall be disbursed to the

petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

this order.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

GAURAV S./-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          29.11.2021
Transmission Date       NA