Patna High Court
Rama Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 5 May, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1507 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24188 of 2013
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Sinha, son of late Vijay Kumar Sinha, resident of Quarter No. 2,
Type-IV, Bhavishya Nidhi Enclave, Block-H, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Near City Center, Basant Avenue, Ludhiana, Panjab-141013.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Executive Engineer, Triveniganj Canal Construction Division,
Narkatiaganj, West Champaran.
4. Director-cum-Enquiry Officer, Water Management-cum-Irrigation
Availability Reform Directorate, Irrigation Bhawan, Patna.
5. Superintendent Engineer-cum-Public Information Officer, Irrigation
Monitoring Cell- 316 (Irrigation Bhawan), Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, AC to AAG-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)
Date : 05-05-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 22.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C No. 24188 of
2013.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant's late
father was posted as Junior Engineer in Triveni Canal
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
2/12
Construction Sub-division, Kaurewa, Camp Sikta under Triveni
Canal Construction Division, Narkatiyaganj during the period
2003-05. He remained absent from duty in unauthorized manner
since 28.8.2003. During this period, he neither executed any
Government work nor he performed election duty during Lok
Sabha Election, 2004 which is in utter violation of the order
issued by the competent authority. The delinquent employee was
placed under suspension by Memo No. 404 dated 30.04.2005
(Annexure-4 to the writ petition) in contemplation of
proceedings against him on the ground of unauthorized absence
from the duty since 28.8.2013. The departmental proceeding
was initiated against him under Rule 55 of the CCA Rules, 1930
vide resolution dated 24.5.2005, which is Annexure A to the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. A copy of
the said resolution along with the charges and evidence were
duly communicated to the employee. However, neither he gave
his joining at the headquarter in compliance of the direction of
the Executive Engineer contained in letter dated 25.4.2005 nor
did he submit his written defence before the Inquiry Officer in
spite of valid service of notice even at his permanent address.
Thereafter, respondents communicated the notice in a widely
circulated newspaper on 26.6.2005 and 25.10.2005 which is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
3/12
evident from Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit. Charge
memo dated 23.5.2005 is also enclosed along with Annexure-B
series. In spite of adequate notices, petitioner's late father did
not turn up to give his joining at the headquarter and continued
to ignore the suspension order as also the charges were framed
against him. On 30.12.2005, the Inquiry Officer submitted the
Inquiry report holding the charges proved against the
delinquent. A copy of the Inquiry report has been annexed as
Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. On 25.06.2010, second
show-cause notice was issued to the delinquent which was
replied by him on 22.07.2010 and ultimately, vide Memo No.
1535 dated 11.10.2020, the delinquent was dismissed from the
service.
4. From perusal of the Enquiry Report, it appears that
Inquiry Officer hurriedly proceeded to conclude the
departmental inquiry within few days and in a flimsy manner,
the late father of the appellant was dismissed from the service.
5. In this regard, it is necessary to reproduce the
dismissal order dated 11.10.2010.
fcgkj ljdkj
ty lalk/ku foHkkx
vkns"k
vk0l0&22@fu0fl0¼eksfr0½&8&1@2005@189@iVuk]
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
4/12
fnukad&11&10&10
Jh fot; dqekj flUgk] rRdkyhu duh; vfHk;ark] f=os.kh
ugj fuekZ.k voj ize.My] dkSjsok] f"k0&fldjk ¼f=os.kh ugj fuekZ.k
ize.My ujdfV;kxat ds v/khu½ dks LosPNk ls vukf/kd`r :i ls
eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ljdkjh dk;Z dk fu'iknu ugha djus
yksd lHkk pquko dk;Z 2004 esa Hkkx ugha ysuk rFkk vuqifLFkfr
fooj.kh fucaf/kr Mkd ls Hkstus ,oa fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh ds vkns"k dk
vuqikyu ugha djus vkfn izFke nz'V;k izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy,
foHkkxh; vkns"k la0&37 lg Kkikad 404 fnukad&30-04-05 }kjk
fuyafcr djrs gq, muds fo:) flfoy lfoZlst ¼oxhZdj.k]
fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ :Yl&1930 ds fu;e&55 ds rgr foHkkxh;
ladYi Kkikad&518 fnukad&24-5-05 }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izkjEHk
dh xbZA
fuyacu vof/k ds fy, fu/kkZfjr eq[;ky; ^^funs"kd] ty izca/ku ,oa
flapkbZ miyfC/k lq/kkj funs"kky;] iVuk** esa Jh flUgk }kjk ;ksxnku
ugha fn;k x;k vkSj u gh lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds le{k viuk dksbZ
fyf[kr c;ku gh fn;k x;kA bl chp lanfHkZr vkns"k ,oa i=ksa dk
rkfeyk Jh flUgk ds LFkkbZ irs ij djkus dk iz;kl fu'Qy gksus ij
nks ckj Øe"k% fn0&26-06-2005 rFkk fn0&25-10-2005 dks lekpkj
i=ksa esa Hkh lwpuk izdkf"kr dh xbZA fQj Hkh Jh flUgk }kjk eq[;ky;
esa ;ksxnku ugha fn;k x;kA Jh flUgk }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa
mifLFkr ugha gksus ds ifjis{; esa Jh flUgk ds fo:) vkjksi dks Lor%
izekf.kr gksus dk mYys[k djrs gq, tkWap inkf/kdkjh }kjk vxzsrj
dkjZokbZ foHkkx }kjk fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa
vkjksiksa dks Lor% izekf.kr ekurs gq, D;ksa ugha lsok ls c[kkZLr dj
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
5/12
fn;k tk;] bl fcUnq ij Jh flUgk ls foHkkxh; i=kad 960 fnukad
25-6-10
}kjk f}rh; dkj.k iqPNk dh xbZA Jh flUgk }kjk fn;s x;s
f}rh; dkj.k iqPNk dk mrj fnukad 22-7-10 dh leh{kk ,oa tkWap
inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr tkWap izfrosnu ftlesa vkjksi Lor% izekf.kr
gksus dk mYys[k gS] dh leh{kk foHkkx }kjk dh xbZ lE;d
leh{kksijkUr fuEu rF; ik;s x;s%&
¼1½ Jh flUgk }kjk u rks fu/kkZfjr eq[;ky; esa ;ksxnku gh fd;k x;k
,oa u gh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa Jh flUgk mifLFkr gq, tcfd blds
fy, muds fuokl LFkku ds irs ij fucaf/kr Mkd ls lwpuk Hksth
xbZ ,oa izsl foKfIr ds }kjk nks ckj nSfud lekpkj i= esa lwpuk Hkh
izdkf"kr dh xbZA
¼2½ Jh flUgk dks fuyacu dh tkudkjh izkIr gksus ds i"pkr Hkh muds
}kjk fuyacu vof/k esa fu/kkZfjr eq[;ky; esa vktrd ;ksxnku ugha
fd;k x;k gSA
¼3½ vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr ugha gq,
ftlds QyLo:i tkWap inkf/kdkjh }kjk miyC/k lk{;ksa@vfHkys[kksa ds
vk/kkj ij tkWap izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k x;k gS ftles vkjksiksa ds Lor%
izekf.kr gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA
¼4½ mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa Jh flUgk ds fo:) fuEu
vkjksi izekf.kr ik;k x;k%&
¼d½ foHkkxh; ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns"k dh tku cw> dj vogsyuk
djukA
¼[k½ eq[;ky; ,oa dk;ZLFky ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jguk ,oa fcuk
dk;Z fd;s gh osru Hkqxrku ds fy, mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ij vuko";d
ncko cukukA
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
¼x½ eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k Jh flUgk] d0 v0 }kjk
yksd lHkk pquko&2004 dk pquko dk;Z gsrq izfrfu;qfDr i= dks u rks
izkIr fd;k x;k vkSj u fuokZpu dk;Z esa gh Hkkx fy;k x;kA
Jh flUgk }kjk fuyacu vkns"k fn0&30-04-05 ds ckn ls vktrd
eq[;ky; esa ;ksxnku ugha nsus ds dkj.k budh vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr
yxkrkj ikWap o'kksZa ls Hkh vf/kd dh gks pqdh gS blfy, fcgkj lsok
lafgrk ds fu;e&76 ds izko/kku ds rgr Jh flUgk c[kkZLrxh ds naM
ds ik= Hkh gks pqds gSA
mi;qZDr izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, Jh flUgk dks lsok ls c[kkZLr djus
dk fu.kZ; foHkkx }kjk fy;k x;k gSA vr% mDr foHkkxh; fu.kZ; ds
vkyksd esa Jh fot; dqekj flUgk] rRdkyhu duh; vfHk;Urk] f=os.kh
ugj fuekZ.k voj ize.My] dkSjsok] f"k0&fldVk ¼vkbZ0Mh0ts0&4505½
dks vkns"k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls lsok ls c[kkZLr ¼dismiss½ fd;k
tkrk gSA
¼nsoh jtd½
vfHk;Urk izeq[k ¼e/;½
Kkikad&1535 fnukad&11-10-10
izfrfyfi%&lHkh la;qDr lfpo] ¼izca/ku½@ lHkh
mi lfpo ¼izca/ku½@ lHkh voj lfpo] ¼izca/ku½ ty lalk/ku
foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk@ vfHk;Urk izeq[k] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] fcgkj]
iVuk@ lHkh eq[; vfHk;Urk] ty lalk/ku foHkkx@ funs"kd] ty
izca/ku ,oa flapkbZ miyfC/k lq/kkj funs"kky;] iVuk@ v/kh{k.k
vfHk;Urk frjgqr ugj vapy] jDlkSy@ dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk]
f=os.kh ugj ize.My] ujdfV;kxat@ izHkkjh ok;ksMkVk@ dEI;wVj
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
dks'kkax@ izca/ku lwpuk iz.kkyh dks'kkx] ty lalk/ku foHkkx@
iz"kk[kk inkf/kdkjh&7]9]12 ,oa 22 ty lalk/ku foHkkx@ Jh fot;
dqekj flUgk] lqiq= Jh jke pUnz izlkn] xzk0 ,oa eks0&nqXXy]
Hkk;k&jQhxat] vkSjaxkckn dks lwpukFkZ izsf'krA
¼nsoh jtd½
vfHk;Urk izeq[k ¼e/;½
6. The late father of the appellant joined as Junior
Engineer in the year 1979 and thereafter the services of
delinquent employee Late Vijay Kumar Sinha was declared
substantive on 13th of January, 1987, first time bound promotion
was granted to him on 17.05.1993 and up-till 31.03.2003, no
complaint was alleged against his services. On 24.02.2002, he
was transferred Triveniganj Canal and his joining was accepted
on 9th April, 2003. The late father of the appellant, thereafter,
filed C.W.J.C No. 1807 of 2001 for acceptance of his joining
and salary/payment was withheld by the department and it was
allowed on 07.07.2004, directing the concerned authority to pay
arrear amount of Rs. 52,496/- to the delinquent employee,
keeping in view the fact that no departmental inquiry was
initiated against him. The late father of the appellant thereafter
filed M.J.C. No. 470 of 2005 for incomplete compliance of the
order of Hon'ble High Court and the respondent Executive
Engineer in the aforesaid contempt petition issued order for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
payment of Rs. 3,95,850/- on 18th March, 2005 and the late
father of the appellant was directed to give his joining at the
Headquarter by a letter dated 25.04.2005. The late father of the
appellant was thereafter suspended on 30th of April, 2005 and
vide Memo No. 1535 dated 11.10.2020, he was dismissed from
the service.
7. All these facts go to show that since father of the
appellant had filed writ petition against the authority concerned,
regarding whom, as a retaliatory measure and taking vindictive
approach, he was suspended from the service, and without
hearing him the Inquiry Officer has found him guilty and ex-
parte order of major punishment (dismissal) was passed against
late father of the appellant.
8. Taking note of these infirmities, it is evident that late
father of the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity
of adducing evidence before the Inquiring Officer. It is to be
noted that major penalty of removal from service has been
imposed. In such circumstance the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary
Authority/Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority should have
examined as to whether the delinquent employee has been
provided ample opportunity of adducing evidence and cross-
examining the witnesses. These issues have not been taken note
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
of by the learned Single Judge. These are the legal issues insofar
as adducing evidence and non providing ample opportunity to
cross examine the witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 6
SCC 563 elaborately considered under what circumstances writ
court can interfere insofar as judicial review of disciplinary
proceedings. Paragraph-22 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as
under:-
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the
Court does not act as an appellate forum over
the findings of the disciplinary authority. The
court does not reappreciate the evidence on
the basis of which the finding of misconduct
has been arrived at in the course of a
disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise
of judicial review must restrict its review to
determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been
complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on
some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct
of the disciplinary enquiry have been
observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary
authority suffer from perversity; and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the
proven misconduct. [State of Karnataka v. N.
Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 : (2020) 1 SCC
(L&S) 547; Union of India v. G.
Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 1806; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S)
80; R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8
SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1424 and CISF v.
Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 : (2018) 1 SCC
(L&S) 310]."
Underline Supplied.
9. The appellant's case would stand fit into the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
case of State of Karnataka (cited supra). On this count
appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the
dismissal order dated 25.06.2010 and so also order of the
learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2018 passed in CWJC No.
24188 of 2013.
10. At this stage, we have noticed that in the event of
quashing of the removal order what would be the consequence
in view of the fact that late father of the appellant is not entitled
for reinstatement for the reason that if he was alive and in
service he would have attained age of superannuation and
retired from service on 25.04.2011, therefore there is no point of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
reinstatement. Further, it is not a case of remand to the
disciplinary authority after 20 years, having regard to the fact
that the Inquiring Officer has committed error in passing ex-
parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of adducing
evidence to the late father of the appellant in support of his case.
On this point the appellant has made out a case.
11. Be that as it may, having regard to the charges
levelled against the delinquent, it is shocking to conscious of
this Court insofar as imposition of penalty of removal from
service for the reason that the charges were not proved in the
manner to the extent that he was not provided sufficient
opportunity to adduce the evidence and cross-examine the
witnesses produced against him. These are all mandatory
requirement in a Departmental Inquiry. However, having regard
to the charge of unauthorized absence for prolonged time, we
proceed to modify the penalty of removal from service dated
25.06.2010 to the extent of imposition of penalty of compulsory
retirement w.e.f. 25.06.2010. Resultantly, late father of appellant
is entitled to consequential service and monetary benefits from
the date of his appointment as Junior Engineer till 25.06.2010,
the date on which removal order was passed and it is modified
by us to the compulsory retirement.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1507 of 2018 dt.05-05-2025
12. For the aforementioned intervening period, late
father of appellant is entitled to consequential monetary benefits
and the same shall be calculated and disbursed. If the post held
by the him is pensionable post, in that event, the concerned
authority is hereby directed to fix the pension w.e.f 25.06.2010
and calculate and disburse arrears of pension to the appellant till
15.01.2024, as mother of the present appellant, who was rightful
recipient of the family pension of her husband, has already died
on 15.01.2024. The above exercise shall be completed within a
period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
13. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 22.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C No. 24188 of 2013 is set
aside.
14. The L.P.A is allowed in part.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 19/04/2025
Uploading Date 05/05/2025
Transmission Date N/A
