The State of Bihar v. Md. Ghufran Ahmad
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Assuming that in the event of setting aside the order of learned Single Judge to the extent that initiation of inquiry in respect of alleged allegation of the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 prior to date of respondent's retirement on 30.04.2014 and the fact that…
- Para 88. Accordingly, the present L.P.A. No.572 of 2018 stands dismissed. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U
Judgment
Versus Md. Ghufran Ahmad son of Late Md. Yusuf, Resident of Village- Sabeya, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- East Champaran. ... ... Appellant/s ... ... Respondent/s : :
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG6 Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 17 11-12-2023 In the present L.P.A., the appellant-State has assailed the order dated 09.05.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.18939 of 2016.
Respondent was Executive Engineer at the relevant point of time, he was subjected to departmental enquiry Patna High Court L.P.A No.572 of 2018(17) dt.11-12-2023 on 26.09.2012 with the following charges:
(1) vki dqy ,d djksM+ ,d yk[k Ikpkl gtkj :Ik;s dh ljdkjh jkf'k ds xcu ds fy, nks"kh izrhr gksrs gSaA (2) fdlh Hkh dk;Z ds fØ;kUo;u ds fy, dk; Zikyd vfHk;ark gh eq[; :i ls ftEesokj gksrs gSa] ysfdu vkius dk;Z ds fØ;kUo;u dh ftEesnkjh vius mij ugha fy; kA vkius lgk;d vfHk;ark dks vLFkk;h vfxze nsus rd gh eryc j[kk gSA (3) vkius vfxze olwyh ds fy, dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dhA
Perusal of the same, it is evident that it is not in accordance with the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, in particularly, Rule 17. In other words, article of charges are not supported by statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses. Be that as it may, disciplinary authority should have resorted to ex-party enquiry in the event of non-cooperation on behalf of the respondent in responding to the show cause dated
26.09.2012. On the other hand, disciplinary authority proceeded to issue reminder after reminder and ultimately notice was issued on 07.07.2015, as on the date, the respondent had already attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on
30.04.2014. Moreover, the alleged allegation in the charge memo relates back to the year 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Faced with these materials information, the Patna High Court L.P.A No.572 of 2018(17) dt.11-12-2023 respondent proceed to question the validity of latest show cause dated 07.07.2015 and it was interfered by the learned single judge on the score that the alleged allegation relates back to the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and it is more than 4 years old with reference to date of retirement dated 30.04.2014.
Even if the aforementioned principle is not attracted having regard to the fact that the article of charges was issued on 26.09.2012 read with date of retirement as on
30.04.2014. In all fairness disciplinary authority should have proceeded with ex-party enquiry instead of keep on issuing reminder after reminder in seeking respondent's explanation to the show cause notice dated 26.09.2012. Having regard to the contents of the show cause notice dated 26.09.2012 and it is not supported by statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses. On this score, itself the very initiation of inquiry is not in accordance with Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
Assuming that in the event of setting aside the order of learned Single Judge to the extent that initiation of inquiry in respect of alleged allegation of the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 prior to date of respondent's retirement on 30.04.2014 and the fact that we are in the year 2023, it is not appropriate to Patna High Court L.P.A No.572 of 2018(17) dt.11-12-2023 set aside the order of learned single judge and remand the matter, for the reasons that there is a defect in the initiation of inquiry dated 26.09.2012 to the extent of non-compliance of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
7. Taking note of these dates and events, the appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.05.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.18939 of 2016.
Accordingly, the present L.P.A. No.572 of 2018 stands dismissed. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.