The Principal Secretary, Planning And Development Department v. Government Of Bihar, Patna
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9676 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Dilip Kumar Sinha Son Of Sri Kanhaiya Lal Resident Of Village Chandhariya, P.S. Jaitipur (Kurua), District Jehanabad, At Present Residing At Mohalla Indrapuri Colony, Ashiyana (Raja Bazar), Patna .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Planning And Development Department, Versus Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Planning And Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi 5. The District Planning Officer, District Sitamarhi 6. The In-Charge District Planning Officer, District Sitamarhi 7. The Conducting Officer, Addl. Collector, (Disaster Management), Sitamarhi 8. The Joint Director, Planning And Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna
Decision
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha, S.C. 14 ====================================================== PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER 8 16-05-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the office order issued by Joint Director, Planning and Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 677 dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure-11) by which another Enquiry Officer was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and also for quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner on arbitrary, 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.9676 of 2011 (8) dt.16-05-2013 2 / 6 illegal and mala fide ground which is under challenge here. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Senior Statistical Assistant and was posted on the relevant date in the office of District Planning Officer, Sitamarhi from where he had been transferred to Patna in the office of the District Planning Officer, Patna as Planning Assistant and presently he is posted at Sheikhpura as a Planning Assistant. 4. However, while posted at Sitamarhi some differences occurred with the District Planning Officer, whereafter the concerned authority asked explanation from him vide Memo No. 73 dated 12.03.2008 with respect to signing attendance in spite of being absent on some days. The claim of the petitioner is that although he had replied but the said respondent no. 5 held that the petitioner had not replied with respect to some aspect of the matter. Thereafter the petitioner again sent his reply in detail. 5. Thereafter the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charges were framed vide “Praptra Ka” dated 21.07.2008 which was sent by the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Government of Bihar vide letter dated 31.07.2008 to the petitioner with a direction to submit his reply within 15 days and Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, the Additional Collector was appointed as Conducting Officer of the enquiry. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9676 of 2011 (8) dt.16-05-2013 3 / 6 6. Sometimes thereafter Sri Anil Kumar Sinha was transferred from Sitamarhi and hence another Additional Collector Sri Sidhi Nath Jha was appointed as Conducting Officer vide Memo No. 3410 dated 16.10.2008 and enquiry proceeded in which due procedure of law was adopted, evidences were produced by both the sides and finally the report dated 20.11.2010 was submitted by the Conducting Officer holding that the allegation against the petitioner was not proved and the entire episode was due to confusion between the petitioner and his controlling authority i.e. the District Planning Officer. 7. However, without any notice or information to the petitioner and without asking show-cause from him, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned office order dated 04.03.2011 merely on the ground that the earlier enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer was not a report point wise rather it was a conclusion due to which there was problem to act against the petitioner. This order of the disciplinary authority dated 04.03.2011 had been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition which was filed on 17.5.2011. 8. It transpires that during the pendency of this writ petition a fresh enquiry was held by another newly appointed Conducting Officer who submitted his report dated 7.2.2012 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.9676 of 2011 (8) dt.16-05-2013 4 / 6 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit), whereafter a second show- cause notice was given to the petitioner, in response to which the petitioner submitted his reply clearly stating that the entire process adopted by the authorities were illegal, arbitrary, perverse and on this ground no order of punishment can be given to the petitioner. 9. However, without considering the aforesaid reply of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed office order dated 16.5.2012 awarding punishment to the petitioner by stopping one increment of petitioner’s salary with cumulative effect. The said order is challenged by the petitioner by way of I.A. No. 5412 of 2012 which has been filed in the instant writ petition. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments raised by the parties as well as the materials on record and the settled principles of law, it becomes quite apparent that the due procedure of such departmental proceeding is that when charges are framed against the delinquent, a departmental proceeding is held by the Conducting Officer who submits his report after adopting the due process of law. If the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Conducting Officer, he passes orders accordingly, after giving second show-cause notice to the delinquent. However, if the disciplinary authority does not agree to the findings of the enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer, the 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.9676 of 2011 (8) dt.16-05-2013 5 / 6 disciplinary authority can disagree with it and if the Conducting Officer exonerates the delinquent from the charges, the disciplinary authority has the jurisdiction to punish the delinquent after issuing second show-cause notice and expressing his intent to the petitioner and also after considering the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record. 11. However, in the instant case a peculiar procedure has been adopted by the authorities as when the Conducting Officer submitted his enquiry report exonerating the petitioner from all the charges, the disciplinary authority without any show-cause or notice to the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 04.03.2011 appointing another Conducting Officer for a fresh enquiry merely on his presumption that the enquiry report submitted by the earlier Conducting Officer was not a report point wise rather it was a conclusion by which there was problem to act against the petitioner. 12. In the said circumstances, neither any show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner before passing the said order nor any specific fault had been found in the enquiry report nor there was any occasion or provision for appointing another Conducting Officer. The said order clearly shows that the disciplinary authority was bent upon punishing the petitioner any how and since on the basis of the said enquiry report, he did not 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.9676 of 2011 (8) dt.16-05-2013 6 / 6 find any justification for taking action against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the said order, appointing another Conducting Officer, although the earlier Conducting Officer was still in service. 13. In these circumstances this Court finds the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority dated 04.03.2011 to be illegal, arbitrary and perverse as well as against all norms of justice at the procedure prescribed in law. Hence all the steps taken by the authorities in consequence thereof cannot be legally entertained and thus the subsequent enquiry report dated 07.02.2012 and the resultant order of the disciplinary authority dated 16.05.2012 are also illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 14. In the said circumstances, this Court has no option but to allow this writ petition and quash the aforesaid impugned orders of the authorities concerned dated 04.03.2011 and 16.05.2012 as well as the enquiry report dated 07.02.2012. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the said impugned orders and enquiry report are quashed and the authorities are directed to take necessary steps to which the petitioner is entitled in law. (S.N. Hussain, J.) Sanjay/-