Patna High Court
Bachneshwar Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 January, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5921 of 2016
======================================================
Bachneshwar Jha Son of Late Sadanand Jha Resident of village - Baruari,
Police Station Town, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Bihar Panchayati Raj, Finance Corporation Limited, Patna through its
Managing Director
3. Managing Director, Bihar Panchayati Raj, Finance Corporation Limited,
Patna
4. District Magistrate, Supaul
5. District Rural Development Authority, Supaul through its Deputy
Development Commissioner, Supaul
6. Deputy Development Commissioner, District Rural Development Authority,
Supaul
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed to quash
the office order dated 07.02.2013, passed by Respondent No. 3,
the Managing Director of Bihar Panchayati Raj Finance
Corporation Limited, Patna, whereby the petitioner was
dismissed from service retrospectively, effective from the date
of superannuation, i.e., 31.01.2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Bihar Panchayati Raj
Patna High Court CWJC No.5921 of 2016 dt.28-01-2025
2/8
Finance Corporation Limited, Patna, and joined service on
02.02.1977
in Patna. Subsequently, he was sent on deputation to
the District Rural Development Authority, Supaul, where he
joined as a Clerk on 03.05.1999. He superannuated on
31.01.2012 while still on deputation.
4. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently,
the petitioner was caught red-handed by the Vigilance while
taking a bribe and was placed under suspension by Memo No.
363 dated 02.02.2006, issued by Respondent No. 5, effective
from 28.01.2006. Based on this, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 5 of
2006 was registered against the petitioner and others. In the said
case, the petitioner was granted bail and, thereafter, submitted
his joining on 05.04.2006, which was accepted after his
suspension was revoked in accordance with Sub-rule 3(i) of
Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA
Rules, 2005'). However, the petitioner was again placed under
suspension by Memo No. 977 dated 03.06.2006, issued by
Respondent No. 5, effective from the date of his joining.
Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a charge memo
(Memo No. 1815 dated 07.11.2006), alleging that the Vigilance
had raided the office of the District Rural Development
Patna High Court CWJC No.5921 of 2016 dt.28-01-2025
Authority, Supaul, and caught the petitioner red-handed while
taking a bribe. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on
27.12.2006, denying the charges. Upon conclusion of enquriy,
the enquiry officer submitted his report on 19.09.2009, finding
the petitioner guilty of the charges. Following this, the petitioner
was issued a second show-cause notice regarding the proposed
punishment of dismissal from service. In his reply to the second
show-cause notice, dated 30.11.2009, the petitioner stated that
he had not been given a fair opportunity in the departmental
proceedings and was deprived of the chance to lead his
evidence. Despite this, the Deputy Development Commissioner,
without considering the petitioner's reply, recommended his
dismissal from service to the Managing Director of Bihar
Panchayati Raj Finance Corporation Limited, Patna, through
Memo No. 798 dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-5 to the Writ
Petition). Consequently, the petitioner was dismissed from
service vide Memo No. 207 dated 07.02.2013, with effect from
the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.01.2012 (Annexure-6 to
the Writ Petition).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
punishment order against the petitioner is entirely illegal and not
in accordance with the law. The proceedings were conducted ex
Patna High Court CWJC No.5921 of 2016 dt.28-01-2025
parte, which violates the principles of natural justice. He further
submits that the second show-cause notice was never served
upon the petitioner, and, in the absence of this, the petitioner
was dismissed. Learned counsel also argues that, instead of a
second show-cause notice, a proposal for punishment was
served, to which the petitioner responded, but his defense was
not considered. Additionally, learned counsel submits that the
petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2012, upon reaching 60 years
of age, while still under suspension. However, the dismissal
order was passed on 07.02.2013, after his retirement, which,
according to the petitioner, is impermissible under the law.
6. Learned counsel further submits that there has been
a gross violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005. He also
submits that a dismissal order cannot be retrospective; rather, it
must always be prospective. Under Rule 43(A) of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950, only the State Government is authorized to
inflict punishment, as the employer-employee relationship ends
once the employee superannuates. In support of his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement
rendered in the case of State Bani of Patiala and Another Vs.
Ram Niwas Bansal (dead) through L.Rs. reported in AIR 2014
Supreme Court 1264 and submits that removal from service
Patna High Court CWJC No.5921 of 2016 dt.28-01-2025
ordered without furnishing copy of enquiry report to delinquent
and order of removal so passed cannot be given retrospective
effect from the date earlier order of removal was passed.
Therefore, learned counsel argues that the dismissal order
should be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the entire
proceeding was conducted in accordance with the law. The
petitioner was caught red-handed by the Vigilance Department,
leading to his arrest and the lodging of a criminal case. It is also
submitted by learned counsel for the State that, despite being
served with a charge memo, the petitioner did not appear or
defend himself before the enquiry officer. As a result, the
enquiry officer proceeded ex parte, which, according to learned
counsel, is entirely in accordance with the law. The procedure
for ex parte proceedings was followed, and at this stage, only
the issue of violation of natural justice be tested. Learned
counsel for the respondent further submits that a show-cause
notice was served upon the petitioner, outlining the proposal for
punishment, which was also in complete compliance with the
law.
8. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
records, it transpires that Prapatra-Ka was issued to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5921 of 2016 dt.28-01-2025
petitioner, and he was asked to submit his reply. However, the
petitioner neither filed his written statement nor opted to submit
his defense. The petitioner however, filed an application before
the enquiry officer on 27.12.2006, and the charge memo was
served as per Annexure-1. In response, he submitted his reply
(Annexure-2) before the enquiry authority, in which he pleaded
guilty to the charges. As a result, the enquiry officer followed
the procedure laid down under Rule 17(9) of the CCA Rules
2005 and submitted his report in accordance with Rule 17(23) of
the CCA Rules 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to
submit a show-cause notice under Rule 18(6) of the CCA Rules
2005. In response, the petitioner submitted his show-cause to
the disciplinary authority, who, after considering the reply,
recommended the dismissal of the petitioner from service to the
Managing Director of Bihar Panchayati Raj Finance
Corporation Limited, Patna. The Managing Director, in turn,
passed the final order in accordance with the law. However, by
that time, the petitioner had already retired, and thus, the
punishment was imposed from the date of his retirement.
9. After going through the judgement rendered in the
case of State Bank of India (supra), this Court feels it
necessary to quote the relevant paragraph 38 whereof as under :-
Patna High Court CWJC No.5921 of 2016 dt.28-01-2025
"38. In the case at hand, the
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the
delinquent officer while he was in service. The
first order of dismissal was passed on 23-4-1985.
The said order of punishment was set aside by the
High Court and the officer concerned was
directed to be reinstated for the limited purpose
i.e. supply of enquiry report and to proceed in the
disciplinary proceeding from that stage. The said
order was not interfered with by this Court. The
Bank continued the proceeding. Needless to
emphasise, the said continuance was in pursuance
of the order of the Court. Under these
circumstances, it has to be accepted that the
concept of deemed continuance in service of the
officer would have full play and, therefore, an
order of removal could have been passed after
finalisation of the departmental proceeding on
22-11-2001. We have already held that the said
order would not have been made retrospectively
operative, but that will not invalidate the order of
dismissal but it would only have prospective
effect as has been held in R. Jeevaratnam [R.
Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC
951] ."
10. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear
that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were
initiated while he was in service, and the order of removal was
passed only after the petitioner's retirement. The order is valid
Patna High Court CWJC No.5921 of 2016 dt.28-01-2025
in view of the concept of deemed continuance in service for the
purpose of completing disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the
said judgment will not help the petitioner in any manner.
11. In light of the reasons made above, this Court does
not find any lapse in the impugned order of punishment dated
07.02.2013 which has been passed by respondent No.3, namely,
the Managing Director, Bihar Panchayati Raj Finance
Corporation Limited, Patna.
12. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06/02/2025
Transmission Date NA
