Patna High Court
The District And Sessions Judge vs Vijay Kumar on 17 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.205 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16948 of 2007
======================================================
1. The District and Sessions Judge Sitamarhi.
2. The Judge In-Charge (Administration), Civil Court, Sitamarhi.
3. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General.
4. The Registrar (Administration), Patna High Court, Patna.
... ... Appellants/Respondents
Versus
1. Vijay Kumar, aged about 62 years, male, Son of Sri Rajendra Prasad,
Resident of Mohalla - Shastri Nagar, Goraiya Tola, Ward No. - 2, Police
Station - Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent-1st set/Petitioner
2. The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent-2nd set/Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 17-05-2022
Re. I.A. No. 01 of 2022 and L.P.A. No.
205 of 2020 :
For the reasons stated in the interlocutory
Patna High Court L.P.A No.205 of 2020 dt.17-05-2022
application, the delay of 166 days in preferring the appeal
is, hereby, condoned.
2. The I.A. No. 01 of 2022 is allowed.
3. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, the learned
Advocate for the High Court of Judicature at Patna, who has
challenged the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16948 of 2007,
whereby, the order of punishment of respondent No. I
dated 04.11.2006 has been set-aside.
4. The respondent No. I, who was a clerk in
the judgeship of Sitamarhi, who later rose to become a
Saristedar with Senior Selection Grade, had presumably
misbehaved with the then District Judge of Sitamarhi. He
was suspended on 15.02.2005 and a disciplinary proceeding
was initiated against him with the charge that he had
procured illegal benefits from the encroachers in the Court
campus and when he was asked to remove the
encroachment, instead of following the orders, he had
proceeded on leave and when the leave application was
rejected by the concerned District Judge, he visited the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.205 of 2020 dt.17-05-2022
residence of the District Judge with a request to permit him
to go on leave.
5. The further charge against respondent No. I
is that he masqueraded illness but before that, he exhibited
uncharitable behaviour which required to put him to
departmental proceeding as his conduct was unbefitting of
an employee of a Civil Court.
6. From the order of the learned Single Judge,
it appears that he took note of the fact that most of the
accusation against the respondent No. I were on the basis
of the personal knowledge of the then District Judge, who
himself had initiated disciplinary proceedings and had
framed charges against him. After the enquiry was
conducted by the Enquiry Officer and a report was
submitted, he himself recorded the punishment of dismissal
of service.
7. The learned Single Judge has taken note of
the fact that the order in question was passed on
04.11.2006, when the then District Judge had made an
endorsement on the file that he was proceeding to join as a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.205 of 2020 dt.17-05-2022
Judge of the High Court.
8. Nonetheless the appeal against the aforesaid
order was also dismissed.
9. The learned Single Judge, it appears to us,
was absolutely justified in holding that the time tested
principle of natural justice, namely, "a man cannot be a
Judge in his own cause" was flouted with impunity and the
order of dismissal against respondent No. I was passed. He
has referred to Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. Vs. Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [A.I.R.
1959 SC 308] and has opined that the concerned District
Judge ought to have got the matter decided by another
Judge of the same rank, notwithstanding the provisions
contained in Section 18 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class
III and Class IV) Rules, 1998.
10. Be it noted that the aforesaid provision of
the Rules of 1998 declares that the District Judge shall be
the disciplinary authority of Class III and Class IV
employees, who could suspend or initiate any departmental
proceeding or issue a charge-sheet and inquire into the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.205 of 2020 dt.17-05-2022
charges against the delinquent employee himself or cause
the same to be done by any other judicial officer and impose
any one of the penalties specified in Bihar and Orissa Sub-
ordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935.
11. The aforesaid rule vests the District Judge
of a Sessions Division with a power to suspend and initiate
any disciplinary proceeding. He could inquire into the
charge himself and could impose any one of the penalties
provided under the Bihar and Orissa Sub-ordinate Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935. This does not however
gives a carte blanche to such District Judge to decide in
case of his own complaint against an erring employee.
There could be no more stark illustration of being a Judge in
his own cause.
12. It is difficult for us to accept the contention
of the appellant that there was no element of bias,
institutional or personal, when the District Judge accepted
the finding of guilt and imposed punishment,
notwithstanding the fact that he had himself initiated the
complaint against the erring employee.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.205 of 2020 dt.17-05-2022
13. In the aforesaid circumstance, there was
no necessity of giving a literal interpretation to Rule 18
where the disciplinary authority is the District Judge only.
14. We also find that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is sustainable on the ground that
"justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be
done".
15. There is no reason for us to interfere with
the order of the learned Single Judge, who has set-aside the
order of punishment by an officer, who himself had initiated
the complaint against respondent No. I.
16. There is no merit in this appeal and the
same is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR ARF
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 20.05.2022
Transmission Date N/A
