Patna High Court
Rajeev Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 January, 2024
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2822 of 2018
======================================================
Rajeev Ranjan son of Late Surendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village-
Gosainpur, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation through its Managing
Director, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna
3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation,
Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna.
4. The Chief (Procurement), Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation,
Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Pras
5. The Chief TDPS, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Khadya
Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, District Bhagalpur, Bihar.
7. The Deputy Director (Food), Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
8. The District Manager, State Food Corporation, Bhagalpur, District-
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
Mr. Vishwambhar Singh, AC to AAG-5
For the BSFC : Mr. Shaillendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Utkarsha Utpal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
and learned counsel for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there was specific direction of this Court vide order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2822 of 2018 dt.09-01-2024
2/7
28.11.2023
to the State that the State may file their response on
the different interlocutory applications.
3. In this regard, learned counsel for the State
submits that in the counter affidavit the reply of writ petition as
well as interlocutory applications are consolidated. Therefore,
no need of filing separate response towards three interlocutory
applications.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order
bearing Memo No.2423 dated 18.05.2017, which is a gross
violation of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the CCA Rules, 2005'). The further prayer has
been made to restrain the respondents from concluding the
Departmental Proceeding as initiated vide Memo No.2423 dated
18.05.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
after filing of the writ petition vide order dated 12.03.2018 a
protection order has been granted by this Hon'ble Court in
favour of the petitioner by which it has been ordered that the
final order shall not be passed undergoing departmental
proceeding by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2822 of 2018 dt.09-01-2024
petitioner submits that prima facie this proceeding has been
started in gross violation of Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005.
His argument is on two fold, firstly that the 'Prapatra Ka' has
not been prepared by the appointing authority and secondly the
forwarding letter, which has been annexed under the signature
of the Special Secretary, does not contain the lawful requirement
as contained under Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005.
Counsel submits that the analysis of that Rule has been made in
the case of Uday Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar
through Chief Secretary and Others reported in 2017(4)
PLJR 195, whose paragraph 19, 20 and 21 states as follows:
"19. A disciplinary
proceeding is said to be initiated upon
service of a charge memo as mandated
under Rule 17(3) of "the Disciplinary
Rules" which inter alia enables the
Disciplinary Authority to draw a charge
memo or cause it to be drawn by a
competent authority and which charge memo
should inter alia contain:
(a) the substance of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
as a definite and distinct article of charge;
and
(b) a statement of imputations
of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2822 of 2018 dt.09-01-2024
each article of charge and which shall
contain:
(i) a statement of all relevant
facts including any admission or confession
of the Government Servant;
(ii) a list of such document(s)
on which, the article of charges are proposed
to be sustained.
20. Rule 17(4) of "the
Disciplinary Rules" again casts and
obligation on the Disciplinary Authority to
deliver such charge memo on the
Government Servant concerned, and require
him to submit a written statement of defence
as well as to state whether he desires to be
heard in person.
22. Rule 17(6) obliges the
Disciplinary Authority, where it chooses to
delegate the power of enquiry to an
inquiring authority, to forward a copy of the
enquiry report, the written statement of
defence, if any; the copy of the statement of
witnesses, if any; the evidence proving the
delivery of documents and copy of the order
appointing the Presenting Officer, to the
inquiring authority."
Counsel submits that upon analysis of the
specific provision and the charge memo which is contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2822 of 2018 dt.09-01-2024
Annexure-1, it is crystal clear that there is gross violation of
Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005.
6. One more judgment which is relevant for the
purpose of considering this case is the judgment of Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others Vs.
Ananta Saha and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 whose
paragraph 32 is very much clear, which reads as under:-
"32. It is a settled legal
proposition that if initial action is not in
consonance with law, subsequent
proceedings would not sanctify the same.
In such a fact situation, the legal maxim
sublato fundamento cadit opus is
applicable, meaning thereby, in case a
foundation is removed, the superstructure
falls."
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that
counter affidavit has been filed and charge memo has been
annexed. But the ingredient, which is required to be present
under Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 is lacking in the
present case has not been explained in the counter affidavit.
8. Learned counsel for the State further submits
that due to the protection order granted by this Hon'ble Court
the direction was made not to pass final order in the
departmental proceeding and no final order has been passed. But
Patna High Court CWJC No.2822 of 2018 dt.09-01-2024
in response of the charge memo the petitioner has filed the reply
and enquiry officer has prepared the enquiry report on the basis
of the materials available by the department and the delinquent
officer. Only final order is yet to be passed and, therefore, he
submits that without interfering and passing any order in favour
of the petitioner, let the departmental proceeding is directed to
be concluded with liberty that in case the petitioner be aggrieved
by the final order he may move for further legal remedy.
9. Upon hearing the arguments of the parties and
going through the documents, this Court considering the legal
aspect of the matter that the scope of the judicial review are
very limited but, particularly, in the present case there is
procedural lapses at the very inception of this departmental
proceeding and, therefore, this Court cannot shut his eyes on the
wrongs which have been done at the very inception in the
procedure itself.
10. Hence, this Court has reached on the opinion
that once the foundational matrix of this case itself bad in law
and in violation of Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, the
entire further steps are automatically vitiated, particularly after
two judgments passed in the case of Uday Pratap Singh (supra)
and in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal
Patna High Court CWJC No.2822 of 2018 dt.09-01-2024
India Limited (supra).
11. Therefore, this Court shall not permit the
respondent to proceed and hereby set aside the charge memo,
which has not been issued in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the
CCA Rules, 2005, granting liberty to the respondent that he may
proceed against the delinquent following the CCA Rules, 2005
but with the specific direction to conclude everything within 90
days.
12. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed. There is no need to pass any order on the pending
interlocutory applications.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
