Patna High Court
Fredrick Juliues David vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18875 of 2015
======================================================
Fredrick Juliues David, S/o- Julius David, R/o Mohalla- Kurjee Balu par,
Near Bank colony, P.s- Digha, Dist- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary cum Director Administration department of Jail,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Prison (Jail), Govt. of Bihar, Patna
5. The District Magistrate, Hazipur, Vaishali
6. The Jail Superintendent, Hazipur, Vaishali
7. Sri Rupak Kumar, Superintendent Central Jail Motihari cum conducting
officer, Motihari, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Kamaluddin, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar, AC to GA 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
A) To issue an appropriate writ/writs, order or
direction for quashing the appellate order dated
11.08.2015
passed by Respondent Principal Secretary
Home, where by and where under the well founded
service appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on
wholly erroneous grounds without looking in to the
facts and circumstances of the case and without
considering case of the petitioner as also ignoring the
materials available on record.
(B) To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction
also for quashing the order passed by Inspector
general of Prison (Jail), under memo no-3327 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.18875 of 2015 dt.04-01-2024
5.6.2015 whereby and where under the petitioner has
been given punishment of sensor with withholding of
two increment with cumulative effect, apart from a
punishment of only payment of subsistence allowance
during the suspension period.
C) To issue further direction not to implement the
appellate order dated 11.08.2015 passed by
Respondent Principal Secretary Home, as also the
order passed by Inspector general of Prison (Jail),
under memo no-3327 dated 05.06.2015 and also not to
take any punitive action against the petitioner in
pursuance to the said order.
(D) This Hon'ble court may adjudicate and hold that
petitioner cannot by punished for any action not done
by his superior authority. This court further adjudicates
and holds that the actions of respondents are malafide/
bad in law.
(E) To award the cost of litigation and suitable
compensation for losts and damages cause to the
petitioner because of arbitrary decision of respondents.
(F) To award any other relief/reliefs to the petitioner
for which he is found entitled in the fact and
circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in 1965 in
Munger and after working at different places he was given
promotion in 2008 in the rank of Deputy Superintendent. When
the petitioner was posted as Deputy Superintendent Mandal
Kara Hajipur, there was an incident of marpit between prisoner
Gudu Khan and Ajay, Kamal Rai and Pinku Choudhary in which
Gudu Khan has sustained some injuries for which an enquiry
was conducted by the Superintendent Inspector General of
Prison (Jail) through Superintendent Beur Central. After enquiry
the Superintendent of Beur jail has submitted his report on
Patna High Court CWJC No.18875 of 2015 dt.04-01-2024
26.09.2014 to the Inspector General of Prison (jail) Government
of Bihar in which nothing adverse was reported against the
petitioner and the Inspector General Prison (jail) as
recommended that the petitioner should be transferred from
Hajipur to any other place.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
thereafter the petitioner was suspended on 29.09.2014 and he
was attached with Central Jail Buxar. On 05.11.2014 the
Superintendent Central Jail, Motihari issued memo no. 4841
dated 25.11.2014 and called for an explanation from the
petitioner. Thereafter, vide memo no. 5300 dated 19.11.2014 a
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and
the Superintendent Motihari Central Jail was appointed as
conducting officer and Superintendent Hazipur Jail was
appointed as presiding officer and charge memo was served
upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the Superintendent Moithari
Central Jail vide memo no. 4841 dated 25.1.2014 sought an
explanation from the petitioner with respect to charges.
Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted explanation to
Superintendent Motihari Central Jail cum conducting officer on
17.12.2014 stating in his explanation that the petitioner was not
available on place of occurrence when the occurrence took place
Patna High Court CWJC No.18875 of 2015 dt.04-01-2024
and when he reached there then all the person fled away from
the place of occurrence, so there was no question of using alarm
in jail as under Rule 493 of jail manual, employee must pull the
bell and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry. He further
submits that the conducting officer after enquiry submitted his
report on 05.02.2015 and he has found the charges against the
petitioner are partially proved. On the basis of the report
submitted by the conducting officer, second show cause notice
was issued by respondent no. 3 on 27.03.2015 to the petitioner
holding that the charges are found proved against him and why
penal order has not been issued against the petitioner for proved
charges under the provisions of Bihar CCA Rule, 2005.
Pursuant to the aforesaid the petitioner has submitted his
explanation with regard to the second show cause on 27.03.2015
explaining the actual position as also requesting to exonerate the
petitioner from the charges. The reply to show cause filed by the
petitioner was not considered by the respondent and without
consideration of the show cause filed by the petitioner,
respondent Inspector General Prison (jail) had passed an order
as contained memo no. 2237 dated 05.06.2015 and punished the
petitioner with punishment of censure and stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect apart from payment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18875 of 2015 dt.04-01-2024
subsistence allowance during suspension period. Thereafter, the
petitioner has challenge the order dated 05.06.2015 and filed an
appeal before the Principal Secretary on 02.07.2015. The
respondent Principal Secretary without giving his own opinion
has rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the punishment
given by the Inspector General Prison (jail).
5. Learned council for the petitioner further submits
that from bare perusal of the aforesaid, it appears that the
authorities without considering the reply of the petitioner has
passed the impugned order. So the order passed by the
respondent authority namely, Inspector General Central Jail and
Principal Secretary (Home) is bad in law and the same may be
set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is
no infirmity in the order impugned and it appears that the
proceedings has been conducted in accordance with rule/law
and the petitioner has submitted is explanation with regard to
the second show cause dated 27.03.2015 and after perusing all
the documents and after considering the explanation submitted
by the petitioner, I.G. Prison passed the punishment order vide
memo no. 3327 dated 05.06.2015 as under:-
(i) Censure
Patna High Court CWJC No.18875 of 2015 dt.04-01-2024
(ii) Withholding two increments with cumulative effect
(iii) nothing will be payable except subsistence allowance
during suspension period, but this period will be counted as
service for pension purpose.
7. Accordingly the petitioner has approached before
the Principal Secretary, preferred service appeal but the service
appeal of the petitioner was rejected and affirmed the
punishment order pass by the I.G. Prison.
8. Learned counsel for the State further submit that
the order passed by the I.G. Prison as well as Principal Secretary
(Home) are well reasoned order based on the material facts
available on record and after giving due opportunity to the
petitioner and after following the principle of natural justice as
well as rules.
9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no infirmity in
the impugned orders, no interference warranted.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 23.01.2024
Transmission Date N/A
