Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 18 January, 2025
Author: Anjani Kumar Sharan
Bench: Anjani Kumar Sharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.303 of 2024
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Son of Bhola Nath Prasad Resident of village-Mauleshwari
Chowk, Police Station-Town, Distt-Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secreary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Motihari.
6. The Principal Managal Seminary Inter College, Motihari.
7. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Binita Singh, SC28
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-01-2025
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel on behalf
of the Petitioner, and Mrs. Binita Singh SC-28, learned counsel on
behalf of the Respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:
"i) That the petitioner prays for issuance of
an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/direction for quashing the order which
contained in Memo No. 218 dated 24.04.2023 issued
under the signature of the Respondent No. 3 by which the
petitioner has been dismissed from his service.
ii) The Petitioner further prays for quashing of
the Appellate Order which contained in Memo No. 683
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
2/12
dated 08.09.2023 issued under the signature of
Respondnet No. 2 bu which appeal filed by the petitioner
against the order passed by the respondents is in
violation of Section 17 of the C.C.A Rules, 2005
(Classification, Control and Appeal) vis-à-vis direction
issued by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 23146 of 2028
filed by this petitioner.
iii) And, for any other relief/reliefs the
petitioner may be found entitled under the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The brief fact of the present case is that, petitioner
was working as Lab Assistant (Automobile Engineering Fit
Technology), Mangal Seminary Inter College, Motihari in
transport Department vide Memo No. 147 dated 09.08.2005. It
was apprised by the transport department vide Memo No. 622
dated 07.02.2007 that the petitioner was indulged and caught red
handed by the vigilance team in the act of taking illegal
gratification against which one First Information Report bearing
vigilance PS Case No. 12/2007 dated 01.07.2007 was registered.
Accordingly, Petitioner was suspended from his service and a
disciplinary proceeding was commenced against the petitioner
vide Memo No. 92 dated 29.03.2007.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, based
on the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested and put under
suspension, but after getting bail he was reinstated. The suspension
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
3/12
of the petitioner was revoked by the office order which contained
in Memo No. 652 dated 01.09.2010.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
initially the Departmental proceedings was initiated and inquiry
officer was appointed by the office order bearing Memo No. 109
dated 13.04.2007, and the Inquiry officer after considering the
reply of the petitioner submitted an inquiry Report on 25.02.2008
wherein he mentioned that memo of charge is based on Vigilance
Case and the case is pending for Trial, therefore it will be
appropriate to wait for the result of the respective Vigilance Case
(Annexure P/3 of this application). During the pendency of the
Vigilance case, again an officer bearing Memo No. 221 dated
21.03.2014
was issued by which petitioner was again put under
suspension and a supplementary Memo of Charge dated
21.02.2014 was submitted. He further submits that the Petitioner
has participated and submitted his reply to the said inquiry and
mentioned that the relevant documents were not supplied to him,
so after considering petitioner's reply to the inquiry, the inquiry
officer submits the inquiry report on dated 17.03.2017.
Subsequently Disciplinary authority issued the second show cause
notice to the petitioner on 10.07.2017 by which the petitioner was
directed to reply to the 2nd Show Cause (Annexure P/6 & P/7 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
is application). However, the Disciplinary Authority without
considering the reply of show cause passed the dismissal order
against the Petitioner contained in Memo No. 140 dated
07.03.2018 (Annexure P/8 of this application).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that, thereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate
Authority, which got rejected by the office order contained in
Memo No. 331 dated 02.07.2018 (Annexure P/9 of this
application). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed writ petition
before this court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 23146 of 2018 challenging
both the order dated 07.03.2018 and 02.07.2018, which was set
aside by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on dated 29.03.2022
and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration
(Annexure P/10 of this application). Subsequently, the petitioner
was reinstated by office order contained in Memo No. 272 dated
17.05.2022, and on the same day the petitioner was again put
under suspension by office order contained in Memo No. 273
dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P/11 & P/12 of this application).
Subsequently, a separate memo of charge was prepared contained
in Memo No. 291 dated 23.05.2022 and fresh inquiry was initiated
by the office order contained in Memo No. 292 dated 23.05.2022.
(Annexure P/13 & P/14 of this application). Subsequently, along
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
with memo of charge, letter of Deputy Superintendent-Cum-
Inquiry officer of vigilance case dated 06.02.2007, copy of FIR
dated 30.01.2007, copy of complaint dated 25.01.2007,
verification report of constable, Hans Kumar, dated 29.01.2007
and copies of post-trap memorandum dated 30.01.2007 was
provided to the petitioner and petitioner was asked to file reply
before the inquiry officer. In pursuant to this petitioner filed reply
before the inquiry officer along with relevant documents on dated
17.11.2022 (Annexure P/15 of this application). In that reply the
petitioner explained his innocence on all the charges levelled
against him and also stated that the "list of witness" and another
related document was not supplied to him, also witnesses were not
produced nor chief and cross examination of the witnesses were
conducted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
a letter dated 22.11.2022 was issued to the petitioner for his
appearnace on 13.12.2022 and the petitioner appeared and
submitted his reply accordingly on 13.12.2022 (Annexure P/17 of
this application). On 24.11.2022, the inquiry officer even wrote a
letter to complainant namely Prabhat Kumar Singh and M.P.
Sergeant Major, Police Line, S.P. Officer, Motihari, for deposition
on 13.12.2022, but both the witnesses did not appear on
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
13.12.2022 before the inquiry officer (Annexure P/18 of this
application).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that, on basis of the reply of the petitioner, the inquiry officer
submitted an inquiry report on 23.12.2022, and subsequently, a
letter was issued on 13.01.2023 by which again a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner (Annexure P/19 and P/20 of this
application), and subsequently, petitioner replied to this show
cause notice on 06.02.2023 (Annexure P/21 of this application),
wherein he has specifically mentioned that there is a violation of
Rule 17 of CCA, Rules 2005 (Classification, Control and Appeal),
principle of natural justice and also of the direction issued by this
Court. Subsequently, without considering the reply of show cause
given by the petitioner an Impugned dismissal order dated
24.04.2023 contained in Memo No. 218 issued under the signature
of Respondent No. 3 has been passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. (Annexure P/22) Further, against this order, petitioner
filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2 on 23.06.2023, and raised
his issue again but appellate authority without considering the
statement and contention made in appeal dated 23.06.2023 rejected
the appeal vide order contained in Memo No. 683 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
08.09.2023 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 2.
(Annexure P/24)
9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the petitioner has not received the subsistence allowance up to
the date of the impugned order, i.e., 24.04.2023. Additionally, the
inquiry report was prepared solely based on the FIR, the
complainant's statement, and the verification carried out by
Constable Hans Kumar, without conducting an examination of the
relevant witnesses or furnishing the petitioner with a "list of
witnesses" and other pertinent documents. Moreover, the report
fails to take into account the petitioner's submissions provided in
response to the show cause notices issued. Consequently, this
amounts to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
10. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of the
Respondent No. 3 filed counter affidavit stating that in compliance
of the order passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 23146 of 2018
dated 29.03.2022, one case bearing M.J.C. No. 689 of 2023 was
also filed by the petitioner seeking implementation of the said
order dated 29.03.2022, which ultimately was dropped and
disposed vide order dated 01.09.2023 by this Court observing that
the order dated 29.03.2022 has been complied and petitioner was
granted liberty to take further recourse available to him. (Annexure
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
R/B & R/C of the counter affidaivt). Thereafter, a decision was
taken by the Director, Secondary Education, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna to put the petitioner under suspension in
contemplation of Departmental Proceeding under the provisions of
Rule 9 (i) of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005, on the charge that petitioner was caught
red handed while taking illegal gratification for which he was
authorized to act as Motor Vehicle Inspector vide Memo No, 273
dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure R/D of the counter affidavit) and
subsequently, memo of charges was provided to the petitioner vide
order dated 23.05.2022 contained in Memo No. 292 (Annexure
R/E of the counter affidavit) and the Director, Secondary
Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna directed the
Inquiry officer to submit inquiry report within a month, (Annexure
R/F of the counter affidavit) as the said order contained in Memo
No. 596 dated 29.09.2022.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 further
submits that on request of petitioner to provide him the case diary,
as well as charge-sheet of the trap case, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.3 submits that the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Vigilance Department (Investigation Bureau) vide his letter
no. 10510 dated 07.10.2022 apprised that all the relevant papers
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
including police papers have already been provided to the
petitioner and petitioner has adopted dilatory tactics by asking for
irrelevant documents (Annexure R/H of the counter affidavit).
12. Learned counsel further submitted that Inquiry
Officer filed detailed inquiry report vide letter No. 114 dated
23.12.2022 wherein he opined that the charges levelled against the
petitioner is proved. Subsequently, Disciplinary authority vide
Letter No. 30 dated 13.01.2023 directed the petitioner to file his
reply on 2nd Show Cause, (Annexure R/I) and petitioner submitted
his reply to the 2nd Show Cause on 08.02.2023.
13. Lastly, the learned counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, through its order dated
24.04.2023, as contained in Memo No. 218, rendered a decision
after duly considering all materials available on record, including
the inquiry report and the petitioner's reply to the second show
cause notice. Based on this assessment, the Disciplinary Authority
concluded that the charges against the petitioner were
substantiated and, accordingly, imposed the penalty of dismissal
by exercising powers under Rule 14(xi), Para-V of the Bihar
Government Servant (CCA) Rules, 2005. Therefore, the impugned
order has been issued in strict compliance with the law and
established procedure, leaving no justifiable grounds for this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
to entertain the present writ petition, which consequently merits
dismissal.
14. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for both parties and after a thorough examination
of the available records, it is evident enough that the concerned
Respondents have not submitted any documents to establish that
the petitioner had the opportunity to examine the witnesses
mentioned on record. This conclusion is further supported by the
content of the impugned dismissal orders issued by Respondent
No. 2 and Respondent No. 3, namely Memo No. 683 dated
08.09.2023 and Memo No. 218 dated 24.04.2023 respectively.
Both orders explicitly indicate that the decisions were based solely
on the inquiry report and the Petitioner's response to the show
cause notice. However, the Respondent authorities failed to
provide the petitioner with the list of witnesses and did not afford
an opportunity to conduct the chief and cross-examination of the
witnesses mentioned in the inquiry report, moreover, the
respondent authorities have not even made any exhibits based on
which petitioner could have defended himself.
15. Now, it is a well-settled principle of law, as
discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of cases, such as
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., reported in
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
(1999) 2 SCC 10; Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, reported
in (2011) 4 SCC 589; and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National
Bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, that the mere production of
documents without the examination of witnesses does not
constitute valid evidence. Furthermore, if any material is to be
relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must
be supplied in advance to the charge-sheeted employee to provide
an opportunity for rebuttal; otherwise, it would amount to a
violation of the principles of natural justice. Even this court in case
of L.P.A. No. 462 of 2024 dated 26.09.2024 followed this
aforesaid principle.
16. Consequently, in light of the discussions made herein
above and based on the aforesaid principle this court is of the view
that the order of dismissal of petitioner from his service as
contained in Memo No. 218 dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure - P/22 of
the Writ Petition) passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the order of
the Appellate authority as contained in Memo No. 683 dated
08.09.2023 (Annexure - P/24 of the Writ Petition) passed by the
Respondent No. 2 be non-est and not sustainable in the eyes of
law, hence set aside.
17. In the result, this writ application is allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.303 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
18. The respondents are directed to re-instate petitioner
in service with all consequential benefits.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
