Ram Balak Singh 'Balak' vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1102 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12801 of 2005
     ======================================================

Ram Balak Singh 'Balak' Son of Late Mundrika Singh Resident of Village- Kachchiana, P.O.- Kachchiana, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Secretary-cum-Food Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, Vth Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.

4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, Vth Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.

5. The Chief Administrator, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, Vth Floor Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.

6. The District Manager, Muzaffarpur District- Bihar.

7. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

8. The Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Ranchi.

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

     For the Petitioner/s    :      Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate
                                    Ms. Shweta Anand, Advocate
     For the BSFC            :      Mr. Shaildendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For State of Bihar      :      Mr. Sitaram Yadav, GP 16
                                    Mr. Yatindra Narayan, AC to GP 16
     For State of Jharkhand :       Mr. Maruti Nath Roy, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-03-2023

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following relief/reliefs:

"(A). The order dated 22.7.2005 vide memo No. 5606 passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd, Respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed/terminated from Patna High Court CWJC No.12801 of 2005 dt.22-03-2023

services as contained in Annexure - 30 be quashed holding it as illegal and without Jurisdiction.

(B). The petitioner be directed as a consequence there of to be reinstated with back arrears of salary and other dues including 3 months salary not paid prior to the date of his termination with other consequential relief.

(C). No coercive steps from the side of respondents should be taken against the petitioner.

(D) Any other consequential relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled under the law be given to him."

3. The petitioner while working as an Assistant Godown

Manager, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which was

concluded in dismissal on 20.07.1996 and it was subject matter of

litigation before this Court in CWJC No. 5568 of 2000 and it was

dismissed. Thereafter, LPA 1078 of 2000 was also dismissed.

Further, he had invoked remedy before the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Civil Appeal No. 1941 of 2000 and it was allowed while restoring

LPA No. 1078 of 2000 and LPA was allowed on 29.09.2003.

Petitioner was taken back to duty on 05.11.2003.

4. The concerned authority instead of implementing the

order passed in LPA No. 1078 of 2000, to the extent that

examination of inquiry report by the disciplinary authority and

proceed to pass order, the respondents have resorted to issuing a

fresh charge memo on 06.11.2003. The petitioner instead of

questioning the validity of the charge memo or invoking contempt Patna High Court CWJC No.12801 of 2005 dt.22-03-2023

proceedings, he has surrendered his right before the inquiry report

insofar as facing fresh charge memo dated 06.11.2003. Second

inquiry was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from

service on 22.07.2005. Hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along

with the charge memo dated 06.11.2003 statement of imputation,

list of documents and list of witnesses have not been provided and

further he had demanded certain documents which were also not

provided. It is further submitted that about four witnesses' written

statement have been taken by the inquiring officer without there

being summoning them to appear in the inquiry and adduce the

evidence. It is submitted that author of the documents were

required to be examined and cross-examined. On the other hand,

all the witnesses' written statement have been taken note of in the

absence of providing opportunity of cross-examining such of

those witnesses, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal is

liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents resisted

the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there are serious

charges levelled against the petitioner and it involves financial

irregularities, therefore, imposition of penalty of dismissal need

not be interfered since disciplinary authority has followed the Patna High Court CWJC No.12801 of 2005 dt.22-03-2023

Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Service Conduct

and Disciplinary Rules, 2001 (for short 'Rules, 2001'). He has

also submitted that Rule 28 of Rules, 2001, 'Procedure For

Dealing With Cases Of Misconduct' has been followed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. Matter is of the year 2005. It is to be noted that this is

second round of litigation in respect of alleged charges. First

inquiry was commenced on 17.01.1989 and it was concluded in

imposition of penalty of dismissal on 20.07.1996. In other words,

seven years have been taken by the disciplinary authority to

initiate and conclude the inquiry. Thereafter, it was a subject

matter of litigation on judicial side and it has attained finality

while remanding the matter on 29.09.2003. Disciplinary authority

has committed glaring error in not implementing the order dated

29.09.2003 passed in LPA No. 1078 of 2000. In fact, he has

committed contempt of Court order, however, it was not brought

to the notice of this Court by either of the parties. On the other

hand, disciplinary authority proceeded to reinstate the petitioner

on 05.11.2003 and proceeded to frame fresh charges on

06.11.2003 and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of

dismissal on 22.07.2005. It is a case for remand for the reasons

that charge memo dated 06.11.2003 was not supported by Patna High Court CWJC No.12801 of 2005 dt.22-03-2023

statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses

and further demanded documents by the petitioner were not

provided to him and further about four witnesses have been

examined by means of obtaining written statements from them in

the absence of their appearance in the inquiry and providing of

opportunity of cross examination by the petitioner. Once again the

disciplinary authority has committed error. It is relevant to take

note of Apex Court decision in the case of Kumaon Mandal

Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant and Others reported in

(2001) 1 SCC 182 which is aptly applicable to this case in hand.

In the light of these facts and circumstances, instead of remanding

the matter, this Court feels that in order to render justice,

modifying the penalty of dismissal to that of compulsory

retirement with effect from 22.07.2005, the date on which

petitioner was dismissed from service would suffice.

9. Nodoubt, this Court has no power to modify the penalty

in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court decisions, however, conscious

of this Court is shocking to the extent that disciplinary authority

has committed glaring error in not implementing the order of this

Court passed in LPA No. 1078 of 2000 dated 29.09.2003. On the

other hand, proceeded to issue fresh charge memo and concluded

during the intervening period from 06.11.2003 to 22.07.2005 and Patna High Court CWJC No.12801 of 2005 dt.22-03-2023

further it is second round litigation, therefore, it is a case for

modification of penalty instead of remanding the matter to the

disciplinary authority and asking him to revisit the entire matter

and once again commencing inquiry from the defective stage like

providing statement of imputation, list of documents and list of

witnesses along with the fresh charge memo which was issued on

06.11.2003.

10. Accordingly, impugned order of dismissal dated

22.07.2005 is modified to that of compulsory retirement with

effect from 22.07.2005, the concerned official respondent is

hereby directed to extend all monetary benefits which were due to

the petitioner with reference to imposition of penalty of

compulsory retirement with effect from 22.07.2005. Monetary

benefits shall be calculated and disbursed in accordance with law

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

order, failing which the petitioner is entitled to litigation cost and it

is quantified @ Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand).

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

GAURAV S./-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          27.03.2023
Transmission Date       NA