Patna High Court
Rana Umesh Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 13 February, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17324 of 2024
======================================================
Rana Umesh Prasad Singh S/o Late rana Jagarnath Prasad Singh, resident of
Village-Raspur Patasia, P.S.-Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur in the
State of Bihar, presently residing at B-137, Kankarbagh Housing Colony,
Near Panch Shiv Mandir and Sai Mandir, P.O.-West Lohia Nagar, PS-
Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
...... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Goverment of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, North Bihar Wing,
Darbhanga.
6. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Ganga Bridge Project
Wing, Patna.
7. The Superitending Engineer, Road Construction Department, North Bihar
Circle, Muzaffarpur.
8. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
9. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Ram Nagar, West
Champaran.
10. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, West Champaran.
11. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Sitamarhi.
12. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Motihari (East
Champaran).
13. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Motihari
Circle, Muzaffarpur Incharge (East Champaran).
......Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Standing Counsel 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
2/20
Date : 13-02-2025
Heard Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel 26 appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which
is reproduced hereinafter:-
i) For issuance of writ of Certiorari for quashing the
Memo No. 1959 dated 21.12.2022 and subsequent Memo
No. 257 dated 20.03.2023, whereby petitioner's removal
from service was upheld and prayer for payment of full
salary for the period undergone during suspension (i.e
from 01.12.2000 to 26.02.2003 & again from 04.09.2003
to 31.07.2006) after deducting the subsistence allowance
already paid to him, was rejected in an arbitrary manner
in complete defiance of the principles of natural justice.
(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of
Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to
pay entire retiral dues to the petitioner until his
termination of service, including the amount of salary
that was payable during the petitioner's illegal
suspension( i.e from 01.12.2000 to 26.02.2003 & again
from 04.09.2003 to 31.07.2006) which was later on set
aside and quashed by the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C
No. 5252 of 2004, after deducting the subsistence
allowance paid to the petitioner.
(iii) For directions to respondent authorities to redress
the grievances of the petitioner namely illegal suspension,
transfer during suspension period and termination of
services, in accordance with law.
(iv) For issuance of writ(s) for passing order(s) as your
Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case in hand such as
payment of entire retiral dues i.e a) Gratuity b) Provident
Fund c) Insurance and everything payable to a
superannuated employee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
3/20
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
was appointed as an accounts clerk in the Ramnagar Division of
the Public Works Department, Government of Bihar, in the year
1983. On the allegations of financial irregularities, the petitioner
was put under suspension vide Memo No. 2444 dated
01.12.2000
. A decision was taken to initiate disciplinary
proceeding, in which the petitioner was exonerated with a
warning contained in Memo No. 494 dated 26.02.2003
(Annexure-4). The petitioner was held entitled to all the benefits
of service for the period undergone during suspension.
Thereafter, the Engineer-in-Chief revoked suspension vide
Memo No. 2891 dated 14.08.2003 (Annexure-5) and a
consequential order was issued by the successor of
Superintending Engineer vide memo No. 1067 dated 25.08.2003
(Annexure-5) transferring the petitioner from Ramnagar to
Bettiah. Being aggrieved by the action, the petitioner challenged
the orders dated 14.08.2003 and 25.08.2003 (Annexure-5 Series)
in C.W.J.C No. 5252 of 2004. The writ was allowed vide order
dated 30.01.2006 and the impugned orders dated 14.08.2003 and
25.08.2003 were set aside and quashed with a specific direction
to the Engineer-in-Chief to consider the case of the petitioner
again. A show cause was again served to the Petitioner, by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
Chief Engineer, (Traffic) North Bihar Wing, Road Construction
Division, Darbhanga, on the basis of same set of charges vide
Memo No. 92 dated 12.03.2007 (Annexure- 8), and the
petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the order of
removal, petitioner had filed C.W.J.C No. 13616 of 2008 for
setting aside the order of removal from service and for
reinstating him in service. This Court vide order dated
01.09.2016 gave liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance
subject to outcome of the criminal cases. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed C.W.J.C No. 7376 of 2021 wherein vide order
dated 27.07.2022 the concerned authority was directed to pass an
order regularizing suspension period as on duty. Subsequently,
impugned orders dated 21.12.2022 contained in Memo No. 1959
and Memo No. 275 dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure - 12 series)
were passed, whereby, petitioner's removal from service has
been upheld holding that the petitioner is not entitled to payment
of full salary for the period of suspension. Aggrieved by the
impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as
Accounts Clerk and had joined the service on 28.02.1983. On
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
the allegations of financial irregularities, the petitioner was put
under suspension vide Memo No. 2444 dated 01.12.2000. A
charge-sheet containing 8 charges was served to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed reply denying all the charges. The
Disciplinary Authority, after consideration of the explanation
given by the petitioner, revoked the suspension. The inquiry
report was submitted on 22.02.2003 in which except one charge,
all the other charges were not proved against the petitioner. A
censure of warning was given and direction was issued for
payment of entire arrears of salary for the suspension period and
further proceeded to hold that in case the criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner for the same set of charges would
result in his conviction, then, he shall have to face the
consequences. In terms of order dated 22.02.2003, consequential
order vide Memo No. 494 dated 26.02.2003 (Annexure- 4) was
issued and the petitioner joined his place of posting, was also
granted full benefits of service for the suspension period
considering it to be the period of duty.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the order
of the Superintending Engineer dated 26.02.2003 was interfered
with by the Engineer -in- Chief who vide order dated 14.8.2003
quashed it. The Engineer -in- Chief directed the subsequent
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
incumbent on the post of Superintending Engineer to furnish his
report on the allegation levelled against the petitioner vide
Memo no. 1067 dated 25.8.2003 (Annexure-5) and the petitioner
was directed to give his joining at Road Division, Bettiah.
Learned counsel emphatically submitted that the Engineer-in-
Chief has proceeded to review which is not provided under the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The petitioner being aggrieved by the
order dated 14.08.2003 and the order dated 25.08.2003 passed
by the Superintending Engineer, preferred CWJC No.5252 of
2004. This Court vide order dated 30.1.2006 quashed the ex-
parte orders and directed the Engineer -in- Chief to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law.
6. Learned Counsel next submitted that the
petitioner without any disturbance was posted on the vacant post
of Junior Accounts Clerk in Motihari Road Division from
Ramnagar Road Division, vide Memo no. 2331 dated
12.08.2006, issued by the office of the Superintending Engineer
(Annexure-7). The Chief Engineer of the North Bihar Division,
Darbhanga without jurisdiction, again served a show cause to the
petitioner vide Memo No. 1470 dated 19.10.2006, as to why the
petitioner be not removed from service on the basis of the same
set of charges, from which the petitioner was exonerated. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
Petitioner was removed from service vide Memo No. 92 dated
12.03.2007 by the Chief Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project on the
same grounds that led to his previous suspension. The petitioner
filed C.W.J.C No. 13616 of 2008, wherein vide order dated
01.09.2016, the petitioner was directed to wait for the outcome
of the criminal cases.
7. In above background learned counsel submitted
that the petitioner sought information regarding the status of
criminal cases and had also visited the office of the
Superintendent of Police, Motihari but no information was
provided to him. The petitioner also filed an application under
the R.T.I., Act before the office of the Director General of
Police but no information was provided to him. He further
submitted that even in the Counter Affidavit filed by the
respondents neither any information has been provided regarding
the status of the alleged criminal case said to be pending against
the petitioner nor the respondents have controverted any
submissions of the Petitioner.
8. Learned counsel submitted that aggrieved by the
inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed
C.W.J.C No. 7376 of 2021, praying therein for payment of full
salary for the period he was kept under suspension after
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
deducting the subsistence allowances already paid. This Court
vide order dated 27.07.2022 directed the authority concerned to
pass an order regularizing the suspension period, as on duty and
communicate the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted
that vide Memo No. 1959 dated 21.12.2022 issued by the
Superintending Engineer, Muzaffarpur and a subsequent Memo
No. 275 dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure- 12 series) issued by the
Superintending Engineer, Road Zone, Motihari, in the most
mechanical manner without assigning any reason.
9. Learned counsel in above background submitted
that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of full salary for the
period undergone during suspension in light of Rule 97 Sub-
Rules 3 and 5 of the Bihar Service Code. (Annexure-12 and
12'A). In these background, learned counsel submitted that the
period of suspension of the petitioner is required to be
considered as period spent on duty and to hold that the
petitioner is entitled to full pay and all the consequential benefits
for the period undergone during suspension, because the action
of the Engineer-in-Chief being in teeth of the order/direction
passed in CWJC No. 7376 of 2021, the impugned order
contained in Memo No. 1959 dated 21.12.2022 and the
consequential order contained in Memo No. 275 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
20.03.2023 are therefore void in the eyes of law and upon
quashing of the same, the petitioner becomes entitled to all the
benefits accrued to him for the period of suspension undergone
with interest and compensation and is accordingly entitled for all
the retiral dues.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
10. Per contra, Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent submitted that in compliance of the
Hon'ble Court order in CWJC No.- 5252/2004, a show cause
was served to the petitioner and after considering the reply filed
by the petitioner, order of termination from service was passed
vide Memo No.- 92 dated 12.03.2007 and the representation of
the petitioner for payment of full salary for the period of
suspension from 01.12.2000 to 26.02.2003 and again from
04.09.2002 to 31.07.2006 was rejected by a reasoned order
issued vide Memo no.- 2367 dated 19.10.2011. Learned counsel
further submitted that the petitioner challenged the order of
punishment by filling C.W.J.C No. 13616 of 2008, and vide
order dated 01.09.2016, the petitioner was directed to raise his
grievance subject to the outcome of the criminal cases in view of
the communication dated 17.04.2008.
11. Learned counsel next submitted that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
petitioner preferred CWJC No. 7376 of 2021 and this Court, vide
order dated 27.07.2022 had directed the Disciplinary Authority
to pass a reasoned order regularizing the suspension period as on
duty or suspension and it should be in accordance with law
within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of
the order dated 27.07.2022. The order was duly complied with
by the Disciplinary Authority, who has passed an order rejecting
the prayer of the petitioner for regularizing the suspension period
to be on duty as contained in Memo No. 1959 dated 21.12.2022
and a consequential order was passed by the Executive Engineer,
Road Division, Motihari, on 20.03.2023 contained in Memo No.
275.
Analysis and Conclusion: -
12. Heard the parties.
13. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was
appointed as Junior Division Clerk on 03.02.1983 and he was
considered to be promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk
for which gradation list was prepared for all the Junior Division
Clerk on 01.01.1994, in which, the petitioner found his position
at Serial No. 35. Before the petitioner attained the age of
superannuation, disciplinary action was taken against him. The
petitioner came before this Court time and again by filing CWJC
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
No. 5252 of 2004, CWJC No. 13616 of 2008 and CWJC No.
7376 of 2021. In view of the direction issued by this Court vide
order dated 01.09.2016 in CWJC No. 13616 of 2008, by which
the petitioner was directed to raise his grievance subject to the
outcome of the criminal proceeding pending against him. The
petitioner has given information that he sought information
about the pending criminal cases under Right to Information Act,
but no information in respect of the criminal cases pending
against him for which two FIRs were lodged was provided to the
petitioner. In counter affidavit also, no information has been
given in respect of the outcome of the criminal cases pending
against the petitioner. However, the petitioner waiting for the
information for sometime, filed CWJC No. 7376 of 2021 for
regularization of the suspension period, in which, this Court vide
order dated 27.07.2022 observed that the petitioner should
approach the official respondent to regularize the suspension
period in accordance with law by passing inter alia following
order:
"One of the question for consideration in
the present petition is regularization of suspension period.
When this Court posed the question as to what is the
outcome of the enquiry it is stated that services were
terminated and it was subject-matter of another litigation.
In other words, termination as on today holds good.
Petitioner's counsel is not in a position to apprise this
Court against the order of the learned single Judge
whether petitioner had preferred appeal in so far as
termination issue is concerned.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
In the light of these facts and
circumstances, the petitioner should have sought for
direction to the official respondents to regulate the
suspension period in accordance with law. Such prayer has
not been arrayed in the present petition. While exercising
Article 226 of the Constitution, the concerned
authority/disciplinary authority is hereby directed to pass
an order regularizing the suspension period as duty or
suspension and it should be in accordance with law. Such
decision shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
this order. If the official respondents have not already
regularized the suspension period by passing any order, in
the event of passing any order regularizing the suspension
period in that event copy of the order relating to
regularization of suspension shall be communicated to the
petitioner at the earliest.
Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of."
14. Thereafter, a notice was given to the petitioner
contained in memo no. 1959 dated 21.12.2022 that after
examining the records relating to the petitioner in respect of his
claim for regularization of his suspension period, it was found
that the claim of the petitioner after his superannuation have
been found to be true holding that the petitioner is not entitled
for payment of his salary or his regularization for the period of
suspension from 01.12.2000 to 26.02.2003 and again from
04.09.2003 to 31.07.2006, as per the provision contained in Sub-
Rule 3 and 5 of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Thereafter,
two orders were communicated by the Superintending Engineer,
North Bihar, Road Division, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner has
now retired. The Provision of Rule 97 provides that in respect of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
a Government Servant, who has been dismissed or removed
from the service, seize from or including the date of such
dismissal or removal, the petitioner is only entitled during his
service period for subsistence allowance. I find it apt to
reproduce Rule 97 of Bihar Service Code, which is inter alia
reproduced:-
Rule 97 provides that when a Government Servant, who
has been dismissed, removed or suspended, reinstated, the
authority competent to order the reinstatement shall
consider and make specific order-
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be
paid to the Government servant for the period of his
absence from duty, and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be
treated as a period spent on duty.
(2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-
rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has
been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it
was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be
given full pay and allowance to which he would have been
entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended,
as the case may be
(3) In other cases, the Government servant
shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances
as such competent authority may prescribe:
Provided that the payment of allowances under clause (2)
or clause (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under
which such allowance are admissible.
(4) In a case falling under clause (2) the
period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period
spent on duty for all purposes.
(5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence
from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty,
unless such competent authority specifically directs that it
shall be so treated for any specified purpose:
Provided that if the Government servant so
desires such authority may direct that the period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind
due and admissible to the Government servant.
15. The petitioner has prayed for making payment
of his salary during the period of suspension after deducting the
subsistence allowance.
16. The Apex Court in case of M. Paul Anthony v.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in, (1999) 3 SCC 679, has
held that if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is
being unduly delayed, the Departmental Proceeding can be
resumed and proceeded to conclude at an early date. I find it
gainful to reproduce paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment:-
22. The conclusions which are deducible from various
decisions of this Court referred to above are:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a
criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is
no bar in their being conducted simultaneously,
though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal
case are based on identical and similar set of facts
and the charge in the criminal case against the
delinquent employee is of a grave nature which
involves complicated questions of law and fact, it
would be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is
grave and whether complicated questions of fact and
law are involved in that case, will depend upon the
nature of offence, the nature of the case launched
against the employee on the basis of evidence and
material collected against him during investigation
or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot
be considered in isolation to stay the departmental
proceedings but due regard has to be given to the
fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be
unduly delayed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal
is being unduly delayed, the departmental
proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of
the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed
and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an
early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty
his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found
guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the
earliest.
17. Now the question arises whether the petitioner
is entitled for the relief as claimed for in the present writ petition
till the period of the disciplinary authority proceeded to take
disciplinary action against the petitioner afresh. In view of the
above law laid down by the Apex Court, I find that the records
reveals that Chief Engineer proceeded to pass order No. 12 dated
12.03.2007 (Annexure-8) dealing with all the charges. All the
charges were allegedly found proved against the petitioner, he
was removed from the service by the Executive Engineer, Ganga
Priyojna. The said order was communicated to the petitioner
vide Memo No. 92 dated 12.03.2007, against which the
petitioner preferred CWJC No. 13616 of 2008 in which, vide
order dated 01.09.2016, this Court has observed that the
petitioner had already filed appeal before the Commissioner-
cum-Secretary on 20.04.2007 and the petitioner was not aware of
the outcome of the said appeal, however, the petitioner had also
filed review on 22.02.2008. It was communicated on 17.04.2008
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
that the State Government in review has directed the petitioner to
await the outcome of the criminal proceeding and counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner chose to not to press the
said writ petition for the present with a liberty to raise the same
subject to the outcome of criminal proceeding. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed an application before the Director General of
Police seeking information under Right to Information Act for
getting present status of Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 198 of 2000
dated 30.11.2001 and P.S. Case No. 210 of 2000 dated
04.12.2000 ( West Champaran) along with the requisite fee
submitted vide postal order amounting Rs. 10. The petitioner
though was granted liberty to raise issue and he had approached
this Court in view of the criminal cases pending against him, in
absence of the development in the trial. The counter affidavit is
also silent in this regard. The petitioner had preferred CWJC No.
7376 of 2021, during which period, the entire globe was facing
Covid-19 Pandemic, for grant of salary during the suspension
period.
18. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
concerned respondent passed ex-parte order contained in Memo
No. 1959 dated 21.12.2022 without waiting for the result of the
appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Chief
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
Secretary or giving reference of the status of the Appeal,
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of remaining
amount payable to the petitioner during the suspension period
from 01.12.2000 to 26.02.2003 and again from 04.09.2003 to
31.07.2006. I find that the authorities, who are well aware of the
entire facts of the case and the development, which took place,
have altogether ignored to provide even opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and also have not taken note of the status of
appeal and the status of the criminal case pending against the
petitioner.
29. The law is also well settled that in absence of
any action taken to continue the departmental proceeding, which
was pending against the petitioner by resorting to the provision
of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, within time, the
impugned order contained in Memo No. 1959 dated 21.12.2022
and the order contained in Memo No. 275 dated 20.03.2023, can
not be sustained in the eye of law. Rule 43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950 is reproduced hereinafter:
"43(b) The State Government further
reserve to themselves the right of withholding or
withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether
permanently or for a specified period, and the right
of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole
or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government
if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial
proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct;
or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by
miscondurave negligence, during his service
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
including service rendered after retirement: on re-
employment
Provided that
(a) such departmental proceedings, if
not instituted while the Government servant was on
duty either before retirement or during re-
employment;
(i) shall not be instituted save with
the sanction of the State Government;
(ii) shall be in respect of an event
which took place not more than four years before the
institution of such proceedings; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such
authority and at such place or places as the State
Government may direct and in accordance with the
procedure applicable to proceedings on which an
order of dismissal from service may be made;
(b) judicial proceedings, if not
instituted while the Government servant was on duty
either before retirement or during re- employment,
shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-
clause (ii) of clause (a); and
(c) the Bihar Public Service
Commission, shall be consulted before final orders
are passed.
Explanation.
For the purposes of the rule-
(a) departmental proceeding shall be
deemed to have been instituted when the charges
framed, against the pensioner are issued to him or, if
the Government servant has been placed under
suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be
deemed to have been instituted: -
(i) in the ease of criminal
proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is
made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal
court; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings,
on the date on which the complaint is presented, or
as the case may be, an application is made to a civil
Court."
20. The impugned order contained in Memo No.
1959 dated 21.12.2022 and the order contained in Memo No.
275 dated 20.03.2023 also cannot be sustained which ended with
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
the imposition of punishment in view of the fact that disciplinary
proceeding cannot be permitted to be held in succession for the
same misconduct for which the petitioner had suffered warning.
It is profitable to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Lt. Governor, Delhi and others vs. HC Narinder Singh
reported in (2004) 13 SCC 342, wherein it has been held that:-
"4. Reading of the show-cause notice
suggests as if it is in continuation of the
departmental proceedings. Lack of devotion to duty
is mentioned as the reason for the proposed action
which was the subject-matter of the earlier
proceedings as well. The second proposed action
based on the same cause of action proposing to deny
promotion or reversion is contemplated under the
impugned show-cause notice. Second penalty based
on the same cause of action would amount to double
jeopardy. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in law in
annulling such an action. We are not expressing any
opinion on the ambit or scope of any rule."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Ratio decidendi of above judgment was
followed in the case of Union of India and another vs.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 by
holding thus :-
"18. We agree with the learned counsel
for the respondent that if the charge which has been
levelled under the memo dated 23-12-2003 had earlier
been enquired into in a regular enquiry by a competent
authority, and if the respondent had been exonerated on
that very charge, a second enquiry would not be
maintainable."
22. Accordingly, I set-aside and quash the
impugned order contained in Memo No. 1959 dated 21.12.2022
Patna High Court CWJC No.17324 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
and the order contained in Memo No. 275 dated 20.03.2023, the
petitioner becomes entitled for entire salary due to him for the
period from 01.12.2000 to 26.02.2003 and again from
04.09.2003 to 31.07.2006 and also becomes entitled for the
consequential relief which requires fixation of his pension on the
basis of pay-scale applicable to him in accordance with law.
23. The above exercise is directed to be completed
well within a period of three months from the date of production
of a copy of this order.
24. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
25. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Purnendu Singh, J.)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 20.12.2024
Uploading Date 13.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
