Shyam Sundar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 4122 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.407 of 2021
     ======================================================

Shyam Sundar Sharma Son of Late Janeshwar Sharma Resident of Village- Chatar, P.S.- Kako, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG-XI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-08-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated

18.6.2020 (Annexure-1) issued by the Additional Secretary,

Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna (Respondent

No 3) whereby invoking powers under Rule 74 of the Bihar

Service Code, 1952, the petitioner has been compulsorily

retired from service. The relevant extract of the order showing

consideration preceding the order is as follows:-

"¼3½ Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds varxZr 50 ¼ipkl½ o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q okys vR;f/kd [kjkc dk;Z&dyki@प्रदरर्शन okys vfHk;a=.k laoxZ ds dk;Zjr Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2021 dt.29-08-2023

inkf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ;Fkk dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] lgk;d vfHk;ark ,oa duh; vfHk;ark dks fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e&74 ds rgr vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk iznku fd;s tkus ds fcUnq ij foHkkxh; iz/kku lfpo dh v/; {krk esa fnukad&03-06-2020 ,oa 04-06-2020 dks cSBd lEiUu gqbZA mDr cSBd esa foHkkx ds प्ररशासननक

inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk vfHk;a=.k laoxZ ds ojh; inkf/kdkjh 'kkfey FksA cSBd esa fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr izfrosnu] foHkkxh; vkarfjd fuxjkuh LoPNrk izfrosnu rFkk vU; miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fopkjksijkUr vR;f/kd [kjkc dk;Z&dyki@प्रदरर्शन okys oSls dqy N% ¼06½ vfHk;arkvksa dks fpfUgr fd;k x;k] ftudh dk;Z दकता ;k vkpkj ,slk ugha gS] ftlls mUgsa lsok esa cuk;s j[kuk yksdfgr esa mfpr gSA fpfUgr fd;s x;s mDr vfHk;arkvksa dks iwoZ esa Hkh vkSipkfjd ,oa vukSipkfjd :i ls dk;Z&dyki esa lq/kkj] inh; nkf;Roksa ds leqfpr fuoZgu gsrq ckj&ckj lpsr fd;s tkus ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds आदे शो dk v{kj"k% ikyu gsrq funs"k fn;s tkus ds ckotwn Hkh muds dk;Z&dyki rFkk inh; nkf;Ro fuoZgu esa visf{kr lq/kkj ifjyf{kr ugha gks ik;k gSA lkFk gh buds }kjk ojh; inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa ljdkj ds funs"k dh yxkrkj vogsyuk dh x;h gSA rn~vkyksd esa loZlEefr ls fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e&74 ds rgr mUgsa vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fÙk iznku fd;s tkus dh vuq"kalk dh x;hA"

3. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the

petitioner was never served with any charge memo or show

cause. The second submission is that as per the Govt. Resolution

dated 23-07-2020 as contained in Annexure-5 of rejoinder to Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2021 dt.29-08-2023

the counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner's

entire service performance was to be considered and the

adverse entry in the ACR, if any, is also required to be taken into

consideration. The third submission is that the petitioner has not

been served with notice nor, he has been paid three months of

salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner's counsel has relied upon

decision of this Court in the case of Mahfooz Alam vs. The

State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No 23655 of 2018 as well as

decision of the Division Bench in the case of Bihar State Road

Transport Corporation vs. Vidya Nand Sharma reported in

2009 (2) PLJR 559 : 2009(1) BLJud 155. The submission is

that if the order is beyond the scope of Rule 74 of the Bihar

Service Code, the same is not sustainable.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other

hand, submits that consideration which is manifest from the

notification is containing the reasons as required in term of Rule

74 of the Bihar Service Code. The relevant extract of which is

being reproduced herein:

"74.(a) The State Government may require any Government servant who has completed twenty one years of duty and twenty-five years of total service calculated from the date of his first appointment to retire from Government service, if it considers that his efficiency or conduct is not such as to justify his retention in service. Where any Government servant is so Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2021 dt.29-08-2023

required to retire no claim to any special compensation shall be entertained.

[(b)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-rule a Government servant may, after giving at least three months previous notice, in writing, to the appointing authority concerned retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice:

Provided that no Government servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government :] 2[Provided further that in case of the officers and servants of the Patna High Court (including those of Circuit Bench at Ranchi) under the rule making authority of the Chief Justice, no such officer and servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the Chief Justice.] 3[ii The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three month's previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three month's pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest, to retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice.] ¹(iii) A Government servant who retires voluntarily is required to retire in public interest under this rule on attaining the age of 50 years, or completing qualifying service of 30 years, shall be entitled to retiring pension and death cum-retirement gratuity.]"

5. It is submitted that the petitioner's case is not

similar to the case of Mahfooz Alam (supra). This court in the

case of Mahfooz Alam (supra) had taken notice of the fact that Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2021 dt.29-08-2023

the petitioner therein had been visited with a proposal to initiate

proceedings and to get over the rigours of a duly constituted

proceedings, the authorities had resorted to power under Rule 74

of the Bihar Service Code. Under such circumstances, the Court

found resort to Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code to be not in

accordance with law. Decision of the Division Bench is also not

applicable in the petitioner's case, as in the said judgment the

order/notification of compulsory retirement itself contained a

stigma, which has been taken note of in para 13 of the decision

passed by the Division Bench.

6. The Court on consideration of rival submissions

finds that the impugned order dated 18-06-2020, purporting to

be under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code contains statements

of the petitioner's indictment for misconduct/s. Relevant extract

of impugned notification reads as follows:-

"...नविचशाररोपरशान्त अत्यनधिक खरशाब कशायर्श-कलशाप / प्रदरर्शन विशालले विवसले कक ल छछ(06) अनभिययतशाओय करो नचनन्न्हित नकयशा गयशा, नजिनककी कशायर्श दक्षतशा यशा आचशार ऐसशा नन्हिह न्हिव, नजिससले उन्न्हिहें सलेविशा महें बनशायले रखनशा लरोकनन्हित महें उनचत न्हिव। नचनन्न्हित नकयले गयले उक्त अनभिययतशाओय करो पपूविर्श महें भिकी औपचशानरक एविय अननौपचशानरक रूप सले कशायर्श -कलशाप महें सकधिशार, पदकीय दशानयत्विवों कले समकनचत ननविर्शन्हिन न्हिलेतक बशार-

बशार सचलेत नकयले जिशानले एविय उच्चशानधिकशानरयवों कले आदलेरवों कशा अक्षरर: पशालन न्हिलेतक ननदलेर नदयले जिशानले कले विशाविजिपूद Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2021 dt.29-08-2023

भिकी उनकले कशायर्श -कलशाप तथशा पदकीय दशानयत्वि ननविर्शन्हिन महें अपलेनक्षत सकधिशार पनरलनक्षत नन्हिह न्हिरो पशायशा न्हिव। सशाथ न्हिकी इनकले दशारशा विरकीय पदशानधिकशानरयवों एविय सरकशार कले ननदलेर ककी लगशातशार अविन्हिलेलनशा ककी गयकी न्हिव।..."

7. The impugned notification as is, apparent from

bare reading of the same is not based on consideration in terms

of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. The same casts

aspersions, and alleges misconduct, which is clearly beyond the

purview of Rule 74 (a) of the Bihar Service Code, quoted above.

8. The notification, therefore, leaves the petitioner

with stigma, and is apparently, as a consequence of the various

alleged acts of omission and commission, as per the impugned

order, extracted above. The impugned notification, therefore, is

apparently punitive in nature, and beyond the scope of Rule 74

of the Bihar Service Code. The decision of the Division Bench

in the case of Vidya Nand Sharma (supra) supports such

conclusion of this Court in the instant writ proceedings. The

impugned notification, in the above noted facts and

circumstances, and the settled legal position based on decision

of the Division Bench, noted above, is clearly unsustainable in

the eyes of law.

9. The impugned notification dated 18-06-2020

(Annexure- 1) is, therefore, quashed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2021 dt.29-08-2023

10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

Raj kishore/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          29-08-2023
Transmission Date       N/A