Patna High Court
Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 March, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8801 of 2018
======================================================
Prakash Kumar son of Late Sridama Prasad Srivastava resident of Dama
Kutir, Katra Chowk, Bhagwan Bazar Chapra, P.O. Bhagwan Bazar, P.S.
Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary-cum-Director, Department of Land Acquisition
and Rehabilitation, Government
4. The Director, Department of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Conducting Officer-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sone
Project, Aurangabad.
6. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anita Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar- SC11
Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, AC to SC11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-03-2025
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the present writ application has been filed with the
following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the Respondent
no.3 and contained in his memo no.983 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
2/11
27.06.2017
, whereby and where under the
petitioner was dismissed from services in exercise
of power under Rule-14 of the Bihar Government
Servant ( Classification Control and Appeal) Rules,
2005 ( hereinafter Bihar CCA Rules, 2005).
(II) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing
the appellate order passed by the Respondent no.2
and issued by the Respondent no.3 vide his memo
no.160 dated 02.02.2018, whereby and where
under the Respondent no.2 has been pleased to
reject the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
order of Respondent no.3 issued under his memo
no.983 dated 27.06.2017.
(III) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding
and directing the Respondent Authorities to
reinstate the petitioner in service with all
consequential benefits for which the writ petitioner
would have been entitled had he not been illegally
dismissed from his service including arrears of
salary etc.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as a Chairman on 12.11.1981 and
subsequently, he was promoted to the post of typist -cum- Clerk
in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak
Project, Muzaffarpur. He further submits that the date of initial
appointment is in the year 1981 and upto 14.06.2016, his service
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
record was unblemished. He further submits that the petitioner
was given additional charge of cashier in the office of Special
Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No.6). He further submits
that vide Annexure-1, Letter dated 13.10.2015, a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner from the office of the
Director, Department of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation,
Government of Bihar (respondent No.4). In response thereof, he
has submitted his show cause. He further submits that Prapatra
'k' has been issued to him on 14.06.2016 in which there were in
total 7 charges alleged, with specific allegation that due to his
action/ inaction, loss of Rs.7,95,21,644/- has been occurred to
the Government Exchequer.
4. Counsel further submits that the decision has
been taken to conduct the departmental proceedings upon him
vide letter dated 03.08.2016. He further submits that the
petitioner has filed his reply before the Enquiry Officer on
16.08.2016 and the Enquiry Officer thereafter conducted the
enquiry and submitted his report dated 13.04.2017 in which he
found all charges proved against petitioner. Thereafter, the
second show cause has been issued to the petitioner. The
petitioner has responded against the second show cause,
thereafter, final order has been passed by the Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
Authority. Vide office order dated 27.06.2017. He was
dismissed from service vide order contained in Memo No.983
dated 27.06.2017.
5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner
thereafter, preferred an appeal, the memo of appeal is attached
as Annexure-P/18 and the Appellate Authority has passed final
order rejecting the appeal vide order contained in Memo No.160
dated 02.02.2018. He further submits that thereafter, he has filed
the present writ petition challenging the original order, appellate
order as well as enquiry report.
6. Counsel further submits that counter-affidavit
has been filed and in the counter-affidavit, it has been alleged
that prior to institution of the disciplinary proceeding, an
enquiry was conducted by 3-Men Committee and submitted its
report on 18.05.2015, in which the petitioner has been found
involved in the said wrong. Thereafter, proceeding has been
initiated in which he has been punished. He further submits that
the enquiry report, prior to initiation of the proceeding, has been
submitted about which the State has acknowledged in its
counter-affidavit vide Annexure-13 attached to the rejoinder to
the counter-affidavit.
7. Counsel further submits that 3-Men
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
Committee after enquiry has submitted its report. In the said
report, it has been found that there are in total 14 persons were
held responsible including the then Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Muzaffarpur. He further submits that the enquiry report
has been typed, but in the last, two line has been inserted
manually indicating that the then Accountant i.e., petitioner is
involved in entire matter though he has helped a lot in enquiry.
He further submits that after framing of charge memo, the
matter was placed before the Enquiry Authority, who has
submitted the enquiry report in which all 7 charges were found
proved against the present petitioner which is Annexure-P/7.
8. Counsel further submits that in the said
enquiry report, the earlier enquiry dated 18.05.2015 has
nowhere discussed or it was placed before the Enquiry
Authority appointed after charge. He further submits that the
enquiry report is absolutely defective and the enquiry has not
been conducted in consonance with Rule 17 of the Bihar
Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as " CCA Rules, 2005"). He further
submits that the second show cause has also been issued to the
petitioner which is in gross violation of Rule 18 of the CCA
Rules, 2005. He further submits that the final order is of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
27.06.2017 in which only one line reasoning has been
mentioned that the petitioner has accepted his involvement in
making payment wrongly, which is not correct finding. Counsel
further submits that vide Annexure-P/9, the petitioner has
submitted reply to the second show cause. The left hand side of
the reply indicates the allegation and contents of memo of
charge whereas right hand side indicates the answer/defence of
the petitioner.
9. Counsel further submits that Disciplinary
Authority has passed order that the petitioner has accepted his
involvement in the said work whereas in reply of the second
show cause, the petitioner has categorically stated that in the
said wrong, there is no involvement of the petitioner. He further
submits that about disagreement on his involvement, the
petitioner has categorically stated 7 times in the reply to 2 nd
show cause.
10. Counsel further submits that in this view of
the matter, the said order has been passed in gross violation of
rules laid down under CCA Rules, 2005, where the Disciplinary
Authority has to reach on its own conclusion which is lacking in
the present case.
11. Counsel further submits that against the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has preferred
appeal. The appellate order has also been passed in cryptic
manner, where none of the points raised by the petitioner at all
nor any reason has been assigned, as to why the Appellate
Authority, the points taken in the Disciplinary Authority has not
been considered by the Appellate Authority.
12. Learned Counsel thereafter concludes his
argument submitting that the Enquiry Report submitted after
framing of charge are lacking with the procedure laid down
under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 2005. The order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority is lacking, the applicability of Rule 18 of
the CCA Rules, 2005. The Appellate Authority has also not been
passed order being an Appellate Authority, where he has to
consider all the aspect of the matter in detail. Therefore, he
submits that the present Disciplinary Authority has passed order
without application of judicial mind and in gross violation of
procedure established, and hence, fit to be set aside. He submits
that the enquiry report, the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority, all are not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
13. Counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed as prior to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
framing of charge, enquiry has been conducted whose report has
been submitted dated 18.08.2015, followed by the framing of
charge. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has granted full
opportunity to the petitioner to defend him. The Enquiry
Authority appointed after framing of charge has found all
charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the second
show cause has been issued to him. He further submits that the
petitioner filed his reply to the second show cause and upon
considering both, final order has been passed by the
Disciplinary Authority which has been duly approved by the
Appellate Authority. Therefore, according to him, it is neither
case of violation of natural justice nor the case of violation of
any procedure nor case of exorbitant punishment.
14. After hearing arguments and upon going
through the documents as well as the pleadings, it transpires that
a preliminary enquiry has been conducted 3-Men Committee
which has admitted from both the parties. The respondent relied
on the said report by way of specific pleading in different
paragraphs of the counter-affidavit. On the same preliminary
enquiry, the petitioner is also relying i.e., dated 18.08.2015
which is Annexure-13 of the present writ petition.
15. Upon perusal of the said preliminary enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
report, it transpires to this Court that the 3-Men Committee has
found 14 named persons involved in the said wrongs whose
name has been duly printed in internal page 12 of the counter-
affidavit. It also transpires to this Court that name of total 14
persons has been figured, but there is no name of present
petitioner. But subsequently, in the last 2 lines, statement has
been added by pen that the then Accountant, namely, Prakash
Kumar (petitioner) is also involved in the said wrong though he
has provided his help in enquiry. It also transpires to this Court
that the said enquiry report dated 18.08.2015 has nowhere
acknowledged by the Enquiry Officer appointed after framing of
charge. In crux of the matter, the specific allegation is that the
petitioner has prepared cheque amount for making payment to
the land owner fraudulently. The petitioner is a Clerk and he is
in role of accountant as such he had prepared the cheque. Under
the Land Acquisition Act, it is not the Accountant/Clerk who is
responsible for preparation of award. They are responsible for
preparation of cheque, but the person responsible for
preparation of award, is the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Without order passed in the record and without preparation of
award duly signed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Land
Acquisition Officer, the payment is not possible. On this aspect
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
of the matter, the Enquiry Officer has completely kept mum in
his enquiry report.
16. Counsel for the State in response requests to
this Court to call for the entire record of the disciplinary
proceeding. As such, this Court is not inclined to go through the
entire proceeding rather wants to confine only the enquiry and
material which has been placed before this Court by the parties.
It transpires to this Court that finding of the Enquiry Officer
after framing of charge, is not in consonance with the finding of
the preliminary enquiry based on the report of 3-Men
Committee, but in the counter-affidavit, the State relied on the
report of 3-Men Committee dated 18.08.2015. There is gross
violation of application of proceedings laid down under Rules
13 and 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005, and therefore, the said order
shall not sustainable in the eye of law. Enquiry report is also
lacking of the processes which are being mentioned in Rule 17
of the CCA Rules, 2005, and therefore, the enquiry report
prepared after framing of charge (prapatra 'k') (annexure-3), the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e., order dated
27.06.2017 contained in his memo no.983 passed by the
Respondent no.3 and Appellate Authority vide his memo no.160
dated 02.02.2018 issued by the Respondent no.2 are hereby set
Patna High Court CWJC No.8801 of 2018 dt.21-03-2025
aside.
17. Liberty is hereby granted to the State to
proceed against the petitioner on the basis of charge memo
afresh in accordance with law within the specified period of 90
days from the date of production of the order.
18. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the present writ application stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Prakashmani/-
AFR/NAFR N/A
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 28.03.2025.
Transmission Date N/A
