Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10078 of 2012
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Son Of Sri Anoop Lal Das Resident Of Village- Kalarampur,
P.S.- Naya Ram Nagar, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of General
Administration, Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Government Of
Bihar, Patna
3. Additional Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Government
Of Bihar, Patna
4. Under Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Government Of
Bihar, Patna
5. Divisional Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa
6. Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
7. District Magistrate, Sitamarhi
8. District Magistrate, Madhepura
9. Deputy Collector, District Establishment, Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Parasmani, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to GA-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the Memo No.11485 dated 13.10.2011 issued under
the signature of the respondent no.4 by which the petitioner has
been punished withholding of the five increments with
cumulative effect and further he has been held to be not entitled
Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2012 dt.03-01-2024
2/5
for anything other than Subsistence Allowance during the period
of his suspension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Collector on
02.01.1987
. In the Year, 2008 Madhepura P.S. Case No. 135 of
2008 was instituted against him and thereafter a departmental
proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner.
4. On 24.09.2008, the petitioner was suspended
under Rule 9(1)(Ka) of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The concerned authority has
directed the petitioner to submit his explanation to the memo of
charge. On 16.04.2009, the petitioner submitted his reply to the
memo of charge. In the year, 2009, the police has submitted a
final form in favour of the petitioner. During the pendency of
the proceeding, the petitioner has approached to this Hon'ble
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7025 of 2010 (Annexure-17). The
Hon'ble Court by its order dated 17.05.2010 allowed the writ
petition with the direction to the concerned respondents to
conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of 6
months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the
order. On 08.12.2010, the petitioner has informed the Deputy
Secretary, Department of General Administration as well as
Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2012 dt.03-01-2024
Commissioner about denial of opportunity to the cross
examination after furnishing the statement of the witnesses. On
13.12.2010, Enquiry Report was forwarded to the Principal
Secretary, Department of General Administration. On
23.03.2011, second show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner. On 11.04.2011, the petitioner submitted his reply to
the second show-cause notice and without considering the reply
to the second show-cause notice the authority has passed the
impugned order without considering the contention of the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that when the matter of the petitioner was forwarded to
the B.P.S.C. for approval, the B.P.S.C. has categorically stated
that the punishment is harsh and three increments with
cumulative effect is the sufficient punishment for the petitioner
but without considering the fact that the same the authority has
passed the impugned order withholding the five increments with
cumulative effect and further held that the petitioner is not
entitled for anything other than the Subsistence Allowance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
inspite of request for supplying the copy of the statement of
witnesses and cross-examination of the witnesses, the same was
Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2012 dt.03-01-2024
not done and the petitioner was deprived of defending himself in
an effective manner. He has referred paragraph 14 of the
judgment reported in 2009 2 (SCC) 570 (Roop Singh Negi vs.
Punjab National Bank) which are quoted herein below;
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is
a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges
levelled against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry officer
has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on record by
the parties. The purported evidence collected
during investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not be
treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to prove
the said documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents and did not prove
the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was
placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which
could not have been treated as evidence."
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the proceeding was in accordance with the rules
and there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the authority
has considered all the issues raised by the petitioner in the
second show-cause.
8. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10078 of 2012 dt.03-01-2024
authority had not considered the contention of the petitioner and
inspite of request for supplying the copy of the statement of
witnesses and cross examination of the witnesses. The petitioner
was deprived of defending himself in the proceeding and passed
the impugned order which is not sustainable in law.
9. Therefore, the punishment order dated
13.10.2011 as contained in Annneuxre-24 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to start a fresh proceeding in
accordance with law, after following the Principle of Natural
Justice, supplying the copy of statement of witnesses and giving
opportunity of cross examination of witnesses in accordance
with Rule/Law and conclude the same within a period of six
months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this
order.
10. The writ application is allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
ajay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10.01.2024
Transmission Date N/A
