Patna High Court
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central ... vs Dr. Anil Kumar Singh on 19 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1053 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14135 of 2017
======================================================
1. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur
through its Vice-Chancellor, at Samastipur.
2. The Registrar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University, Pusa,
Samastipur through its Vice Chancellor.
3. The Director General, Indian Council at Agriculture Research, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Dean Agriculture Engg-cum- Chairman, Enquiry Committeeman, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur.
5. The Director, Administration Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture
University, Pusa, Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Dr. Anil Kumar Singh son of Late Ramashray Singh, Resident of Village-
Sherpur, P.S. Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 19-12-2022
The present Letters Patent Appeal is against order of the
learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2018 passed in CWJC No. 14135
of 2017.
The respondent-Dr. Anil Kumar Singh is stated to have
committed certain misdeeds. In this regard, committee is stated to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1053 of 2018 dt.19-12-2022
have submitted report as to whether respondent had committed
alleged misdeeds or not? On receipt of its report disciplinary
authority proceeded to impose the penalty of censure under the
Statute Bihar Agriculture University Act, 1987 under clause
13.9(2)(a)(i) censure. The procedure laid down in the aforesaid
provision has not been adhered to while imposing the penalty of
censure. On the other hand, what has been done by the appellant is
that on receipt of committee's report a show cause notice was
issued asking the respondent's explanation.
The learned Single Judge has taken note of the aforesaid
factual aspect to the extent that there is no charge memo.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
imposition of minor penalty like censure charge need not be
framed and show cause notice is sufficient.
Such submission cannot be appreciated in the light of
the aforesaid provision of Bihar Agriculture University Act, 1987
read with Rule and other service conditions of the employees of
the University while adopting Rules and in particularly Rule 13.
The University are well aware that they have invoked
the aforesaid provision while imposing penalty of censure and
they have suffered order before the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, knowingly that they have committed patent error the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1053 of 2018 dt.19-12-2022
present LPA has been filed. We are of the view that this LPA has
been filed on trivial issue. Further, it is to be noted that the penalty
is only censure, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2018 passed in CWJC No. 14135
of 20176. Accordingly, cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed on the
appellants. Cost shall be deposited in the Patna High Court Legal
Services Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N/A
