Arun Kumar Sriwastwa vs The State Of Bihar And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4805 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2634 of 2018
     ======================================================

Arun Kumar Sriwastwa son of Late Kameshwar Prasad, Resident of At P.O.- Mastichak, P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar- GP-24 Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to GP24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-09-2023

Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the

following reliefs:

(i) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 25/07/2013 passed by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which in terms of the provisions contained under rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner as a minor penalty;

(ii) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

certiorari quashing the resolution dated 14/10/2016 issued by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which the review petition preferred by the petitioner against the resolution dated 25/07/2013, by which the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect had been inflicted upon the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 has been rejected;

(iii) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner that have been denied to him on account of the passing the impugned resolution dated 25/07/2013 passed by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which in terms of the provisions contained under rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, the punishment of withholding of two increments. without cumulative effect has Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

been inflicted upon the petitioner as a minor penalty.

3. The short facts relating to the writ petition is/are

that the petitioner joined as a Labour Superintendent in the year

1995 and while posted in the office of Agriculture Labour, Patna

was given the additional charge of Labour Superintendent,

Lakhisarai for a brief period from August, 2009 to December,

2009.

4. On 07.04.2011, while he was serving as a Labour

Superintendent, Agriculture Labour, Patna, received letter from

the office of the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger

which related to an enquiry report pursuant to the direction of

the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi (henceforth

for short, 'the Commission'). On perusal of it, it was found that it

relates to the use of child labour in the colour and vermilion

factory at Lakhisarai and the report 'the Commission' had sought

for was of the years 2000-2001 (Annexure-1).

5. From the records, it seems that in 2000-2001, a

petition was preferred before 'the Commission' alleging the use

of child labour in chemical factory in the district of Lakhisarai,

after which report was sought for.

6. At the relevant period, the Official posted there was

Mr. Aditya Rajhansh who remained as Labour Superintendent, Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

Lakhisarai from the period June, 1998 to 17th July, 2001. He was

followed by Smt. Kavita Kumari who was posted from

17.07.2001 to the year 2002.

7. The petitioner comes at Serial No. 6 having been

posted for a brief period between 14.08.2009 to 26.12.2009.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he

was unrelated to the entire episode inasmuch as the matter was

never placed during his brief stay at Lakhisarai.

9. He has further taken this Court to the izi= 'd' issued

to him by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai on 13.04.2011 to

show that the documents that has been annexed as evidences

relates to the year 2000-2002. The only document that has come

against him is the report of the Commissioner, Munger Division,

Munger.

10. He submits that before he joined the office of

Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai in August 2009, pursuant to

the letter of 'the Commission' no. 263 dated 16.05.2017, the then

Labour Superintendent had already lodged FIR in the matter.

Further, till 2007, beside Mr. Aditya Rajhansh and Mrs. Kavita

Kumari, Mr. Jayant Kumar, Mr. Keshri Nandan Thakur were

there. He has been made a scapegoat in the matter and

accordingly, after putting him on show cause, was punished with Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

the withholding to two increments without cumulative effect

vide order dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure-4 to the petition).

11. He submits that subsequently, he preferred a

review petition before 'the Department' on 06.08.2014

(Annexure-6 to the petition).

12. He submits that the same was taken by 'the

Department' and as per the file noting procured by him under

RTI Act, the Principal Secretary in his noting gave opinion that

the review petition can be accepted and the punishment can be

withdrawn.

13. The file noting relating to the Principal Secretary

is at Annexure-12 which is incorporated here-in-below:

d`i;k 65@fV0 ij Hkonh; i`PNk ,oa i`"B&66@fV0 dh fVIi.khA

dk;Zikfydk fu;ekoyh] 1979 ds fu;e 22 ¼2½ fVIi.kh & 2

¼i`"B 214@i0 n`"VO;½ ds vuqlkj jkT; lsok dh Js.kh nks ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ij

vkjksfir] fuUnu] osru o`f) ;k iafDrP;wfr vkfn ds fo:) vihy dk fu"iknu

eq[; lfpo egksn; ds ek/;e ls ekuuh; eq[;ea=h ds vkns'k ls fd;k tkuk gSA

vr% ;fn lgefr gks rks Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro] rRdkyhu

Je v/kh{kd] eqaxsj lg y[khljk; lEizfr Je v/kh{kd ¼d`0J0½ iVuk ds

iqufoZyksdu vthZ ij ekuuh; foHkkxh; ea=h dk vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk ldrk

gSA rn~ksijkUr eq[; lfpo ds ek/;e ls ekuuh; eq[;ea=h dk vuqeksnu izkIr

djus dh d`ik dh tk ldrh gSA

¼lat; dqekj flag½ Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

la;qDr lfpoA

iz/kku lfpo

d`i;k fVIi.kh i`0 60&61 ij fVIi.kh dk voykdsu djuk

pkgsaxs] ftlesa Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro] rRdkyhu Je v/kh{kd] y[khljk;

lEizfr Je v/kh{kd ¼d`0J0½] iVuk }kjk nkf[ky iqufoZyksdu vthZ dh leh{kk

dh x;h gSA

ewy :i esa ekeyk ;g gS fd o"kZ 2000 esa Mªksfy;k jax ,oa

flUnqj QSDVªh rFkk uVjkt dsfedYl y[khljk; esa cky Jfedksa ls dke ysus

rFkk U;wure etnwjh dk Hkqxrku ugha djus ls lacaf/kr ,d okn jk"Vªh;

ekuokf/kdkj vk;ksx] ubZ fnYyh esa nk;j fd;k x;kA vk;ksx dks izfrosnu

miyC/k djkus ds fy, ftyk inkf/kdkjh] y[khljk; ds funs'k ij vuqe.My

inkf/kdkjh] y[khljk; }kjk ekeys dh tk¡p dh x;h ,oa mUgksaus ifjokn dks lR;

ikrs gq, ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks izfrosfnr fd;kA

rn~uqlkj ftyk inkf/kdkjh] y[khljk; us Je v/kh{kd

¼d`0J0½] eqaxsj ij dkjZokbZ djus ds fy, fy[kkA bl dkjZokbZ esa foyEc gqvk ,oa

varr% o"kZ 2007 esa vfHk;kstu nk;j gqvk] ftls dkyokf/kr ekurs gq, lacaf/kr

U;k;ky; }kjk [kkkfjt dj fn;k x;kA okn esa jk"Vªh; ekuokf/kdkj vk;ksx ds

funsZ'k ds vkyksd esa rRdkyhu ize.Myh; vk;qDr] eqaxsj }kjk ekeys dh tk¡p dh

x;h ,oa o"kZ 2000&2011 rd Je v/kh{kd] eqaxsj&lg&y[khljk; ds in ij

inLFkkfir lHkh inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) vkjksi xfBr dj vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ

dh vuq'kalk dh xbZA

bl Øe esa dqy 8 inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) dkjZokbZ dh vuq'kalk

gqbZ] ftlesa ls ,d >kj[k.M esa inLFkkfir Fks] 'ks"k 7 esa ls 2 inkf/kdkjh dks

n.M ls eqDr fd;k x;k rFkk ,d ds Li"Vhdj.k dks larks"kizn ekurs gq, mu ij

foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ugha pyk;h x;hA Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro dks fVIi.kh i`0 23 ij ekuuh; eq[;

¼Je lalk/ku½ ea=h ds vkns'k fnukad&21-07-2013 ds vkyksd esa nks osruo`f)

vlap;kRed izHkko ls jksdus dk n.M fn;k x;kA

Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro ds iqufoZyksdu vthZ esa eq[;

rF; ;g gS fd os dHkh eqaxsj esa inLFkkfir gh ugha Fks ,oa os y[khljk; ds izHkkj

esa o"kZ 2008&09 esa ek= 4 eghus 12 fnu Fks tks fd 12 vxLr] 2009 ls 26

fnlEcj] 2009 rd FksA mYys[kuh; gS fd bl ekeys esa fujh{k.k 02-12-2000 dks

fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa vfHk;kstu o"kZ 2007 esa nk;j fd;k x;kA bl izdkj o"kZ

20098 esa y[khljk; esa inLFkkfir inkf/kdkjh ds fo) dksbZ dkjZokbZ dk ekeyk

ugha curk Fkk ,oa ;gh rR; ml le; Hkh fVIi.kh i`"B 21&22 ij vafdr fd;k

x;k Fkk] ijUrq rRdkyhu iz/kku lfpo us bu rR;ksa dks utj vUnkt djrs gq,

fVIi.kh i`0 23 ij n.M dk izLrko fn;k] ftls fVIi.kh i`0 23 ij gha ekuuh;

eq[; ¼Je lalk/ku½ ea=h }kjk lEiq"V fd;k x;kA bl izdkj Jh v:.k dqekj

JhokLro ij dkjZokbZ uSlfxZd U;k; ds fo:) gS ,oa ;s u rks eqaxsj esa inLFkkfir

Fks ,oa u gha buds Lrj ij fdlh rjg dh dkjZokbZ yafcr FkkA vr% izLrko gS

fd buds iqufoZyksdu vthZ dks Lohdkj djrs gq, bUgsa fn;s x;s n.M dks lekIr

fd;k tk ldrk gSA

Hkonh; voyksduksijkUr eq[; lfpo ds ek/;e ls ekuuh;

eq[;ea=h egksn; dk vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk,xkA

¼nhid dqekj flag½

iz/kku lfpoA

ekuuh; ea=h] Je lalk/ku foHkkx

fcgkj ljdkj

14. Learned Counsel submits that this also got the nod Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

of the Departmental Minister but at the Government level, the

same was refused which followed the order in question.

15. Left with no alternative, the writ petition.

16. He submits that Mrs. Kavita Kumari who was

posted at the relevant period when the illegal activities were

going on in the colour and chemical factory in the district of

Lakhisarai and was posted again and again, in her case, 'the

Department' took a different view and her review application

was accepted and she was exonerated of the charges by 'the

Department' vide memo no. 2825 dated 18.09.2014.

17. He as such reiterates that for being posted for a

brief period, a decade after the episode, he has been made a

scapegoat, punished and the review petition despite the

recommendation of the Principal Secretary duly accepted by the

Departmental Minister was negated. He as such wants the Court

to interfere in the matter.

18. Learned State Counsel with the help of the counter

affidavit of respondent no. 2 has parroted the facts of the case

and stated that to benefit the factory, he worked during that brief

period. Upon specific query, what was the benefit that was

extended to the factory, neither from the reply nor the

submission put forward by learned State Counsel, any answer Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

came.

19. From the facts of the case, it is very clear that

(i) the case relates to the year 2000-2001;

(ii) 'the Commission' wanted reply from the District

Administration who sat over the matter for years;

(iii) when 'the Commission' in 2007 reminded the

respondents, they awoke from deep slumber and before sending

reply, took several steps which included the lodging of the FIR;

(iv) all this happened during the period 2007-2008;

(v) the petitioner came a year later in 2009 and by that

time the steps were already taken;

(vi) from the izi= 'd', it is clear that all the

evidences/documents that was/were annexed relates to the year

2001-2002.

20. In the year 2011, the Commissioner, Munger

Division, Munger submitted his report to 'the Commission' vide

memo no. 487 dated 07.04.2011 in which while exonerating all

the District Magistrates posted there between 1999 to 2011

chose to shift the responsibility on the Labour Superintendents

for the said period (1999-2011) which included the petitioner

who was posted in the year 2009. Only because the report was

sent in the year 2011, the Commissioner, Munger Division, Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

Munger rounded up everyone posted there till then.

21. From the file noting which the petitioner procured

under the RTI Act, the Principal Secretary of 'the Department'

was also of the view that the review application of the petitioner

can be considered and he can be exonerated of the charges. This

was also approved by the concerned Minister but at the

Government level, different view was taken.

22. Further, Mrs. Kavita Kumari who was posted at

relevant period, her case was considered and review application

accepted, she was exonerated of the charges. It is necessary to

incorporate memo no. 2825 dated 18.09.2014 passed by 'the

Department' exonerating her of the charges which read as

follows:

Annexure-7 fcgkj ljdkj Je lalk/ku foHkkx ladYi

Jherh dfork dqekjh rRdkyhu Je v/kh{kd]

teqbZ&lg&y[khljk; lEçfr lgk;d Jek;qä dfVgkj ds fo#)

ftyk inkf/kdkjh y[khljk; ls çkIr çi= *d* ,oa mlij Jek;qä

fcgkj ds i=kad 2222 fnukad& 11-06-2012 }kjk çkIr la'kksf/kr

çi= *d* esa xfBr vkjksi ds vk/kkj ij foHkkxh; ladYi

la[;k&1816 fnukad& 28-06-2012 }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh çkjEHk

dh x;h ,oa bl foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu inkf/kdkjh Jh Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

HkwisUæ dqekj flag] la;qä lfpo Je lalk/ku foHkkx fu;qä fd;s

x;sA bl foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dk

LFkkukUrj.k LokLF; foHkkx esa gks tkus ds QyLo:i la'kksf/kr

ladYi la[;k&415 fnukad 14-02-2013 }kjk Jherh bUnq flag] mi

lfpo Je lalk/ku foHkkx dks lapkyu inkf/kdkjh fu;qä fd;k

x;kA

Jherh dfork dqekjh ds fo:) çi= *d* esa xfBr

vkjksiksa ij lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu inkf/kdkjh us

vius tkap çfrosnu esa muds fo:) yxk;s x;s lHkh N% ¼06½

vkjksiksa dks çekf.kr ik;kA lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls çkIr tk¡p

çfrosnu ij Jherh dfork dqekjh ls f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk dh ekax

dh x;hA ftlds tckc esa Jherh dfork dqekjh }kjk iwoZ dh ckrksa

dks nksgjk;k x;k vkSj N% vkjksiksa esa ek= nks vkjksiksa ij /;ku

dsfUær fd;k x;k] ftlesa foHkkxh; lHkh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd

Jherh dfork dqekjh okLro esa y[khljk; ds Je v/kh{kd ds

çHkkj esa Fkh vkSj tk¡p inkf/kdkjh us bldh iqf"V tk¡p çfrosnu esa

dh gSA

vr,o ljdkj ds lE;d leh{kksijkUr Jherh dfork

dqekjh ds fo:) mä foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa nks"k fl) gksus ds

QyLo:i fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½

fu;ekoyh 2005 ds Hkkx&V dafMdk& 14 dh mi dafMdk&V ds

rgr y?kq n.M ds :i esa mudh nks osru o`f);k¡ vlap;kRed

çHkko ls jksds tkus dk n.M foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&4481

fnukad 04-12-2013 }kjk vf/kjksfir fd;k x;kA foHkkxh;

dk;Zokgh esa ikfjr mä fu/kkZfjr n.M ij iqufoZyksdu ,oa n.M Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

lalwpu ls eqDr fd;ss tkus laca/kh ekuuh; eq[;ea=h lg çHkkjh

ea=h Je lalk/ku foHkkx dks lEcksf/kr vH;kosnu Jherh dfork

dqekjh lgk;d Jek;qä dfVgkj ds Kkikad&16 fnukad 13-01-

2014 }kjk çkIr gqvk A

mä iqufoZyksdu vH;kosnu dh leh{kk dh x;hA

leh{kk ds Øe esa fu.kZ;kuqlkj Jherh dfork dqekjh ds fo:)

lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls çkIr tkap

çfrosnu ,oa Jherh dqekjh ls çkIr iqufoZyksdu vH;kosnu ij

ftyk inkf/kdkjh y[khljk; ,oa Jek;qä fcgkj ls fLFkfr Li"V

djrs gq, çfrosnu miyC/k djkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA

mä nksuks inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls çkIr çfrosnu ds lE;d

leh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd pwafd ftyk inkf/kdkjh y[khljk; ds

i= }kjk çklafxd ekeys esa Je v/kh{kd eqaxsj dks funs'k fn;k

tkrk jgk gS ,oa ;g fo"k; Jherh dfork dqekjh ds laKku esa

ugha jgkA vr% muds fo:) vkjksi oS| çrhr ugha gksrk gSA

vr% çklafxd ekeys esa Jherh dfork dqekjh ls

çkIr iqufoZyksdu vthZ ij ftyk inkf/kdkjh y[khljk; ,oa

Jek;qä fcgkj ls çkIr çfrosnu ds vkyksd esa lansg dk ykHk nsrs

gq, muds iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk ij fopkj dj mUgsa fn;s x;s n.M

ls eqä djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA

2- çLrko esa l{ke çkf/kdkj dk vuqeksnu çkIr gSA

vkns'k%& vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dh ,d çfr

Jherh dfork dqekjh] rRdkyhu Je v/kh{kd]

teqbZ&lg&y[khljk;] lEçfr lgk;d Jek;qä] dfVgkj dks

fucaf/kr Mkd ls miyC/k djk;saA Patna High Court CWJC No.2634 of 2018 dt.21-09-2023

fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls go/-

(nso uUnu ;kno) ljdkj ds vij lfpo

23. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the

punishment meted out to the petitioner is without any basis.

There is nothing on record to prove that he allegedly extended

benefits to the factory. He was posted after the FIR was already

lodged. The successive District Magistrates sat over the matter

and did not sent report to 'the Commission' but were exonerated

of the charges.

24. Thus the order against the petitioner needs

interference.

25. Accordingly, the order passed vide memo no.

2540 dated 25.07.2013 and memo no. 2987 dated 14.10.2016

both issued by the Labour Resources Department, Bihar, Patna

stands quashed.

26. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential

benefits.

27. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) kiran/-

AFR/NAFR                  AFR
CAV DATE                  N/A
Uploading Date          25.09.2023
Transmission Date