RANJAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2013 (2) dt.01-02-2013 2 stated that even when the 46 applications were found to have been stored in the house of the petitioner, there was no bad intention on the part of the petitioner in keeping those applications in his house because it is a practice that whatever work remains pending the same is carried out by the Government servant to his house for completing the same at his residence. It has also been stated that the residence of the petitioner is actually by the side of the Anchal Office. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error in the impugned order. The petitioner was an employee working on contract as would be evident from the order of his engagement dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure-2) which would leave nothing for speculation that the petitioner is not a government Servant and therefore no regular departmental proceeding was required to be held for his removal from service. The petitioner in course of sudden inspection of the district Magistrate himself was found to be negligent in his duty, inasmuch as, out of 111 applications received as duly recorded in the register maintenance under Right to Public Service Act only 65 of Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2013 (2) dt.01-02-2013 3 them were found in the office and remaining 46 were found to be missing. On an inquiry from the petitioner who was the Incharge Clerk, he had stated that they were at his residence and had brought them from his house. It is this aspect of the matter which was made the subject matter of the show cause notice, wherein, the petitioner was asked to file his show cause reply, relevant portion of the show cause notice is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^mi;qZDr fo"k;d funs’kkuqlkj dguk gS fd fnukad 08-08-2012 dks ftyk inkf/kdkjh] [kxfM+;k ds }kjk vapy dk;kZy;] xksxjh dk vkSpd fujh{k.k ds dze esa vkj0Vh0ih0,l0 dkmUVj ij izkIr vkosnuksa dh dqy la0 111 Fkk ijUrq ogka ek= 65 vkosnu i= gh ik;k x;kA ’ks"k vkosnu i= dkmUVj ij ugha FkkA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku Jh jatu dqekj dk;Zikyd lgk;d ls iwNrkN djus ij muds }kjk ’ks"k vkosnu i= dks vius vkokl ls yk;s x;s tks fu;e ds fo:n~/k gSA Jh lat; dqekj dk;Zikyd lgk;d Hkh bl dk;Z esa lafyIr ik;k x;kA mDr vkjksi esa nksuksa dk;Zikyd lgk;d dks iqfyl fgjklr esa ys fy;k x;kA rRi’pkr vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] xksxjh dk i=kad 551] fnukad 08-08-2012 ds vkyksd esa dk;Zikyd n.Mkf/kdkjh] xksxjh dk i=kad 552] fnukad 08-08-2012 }kjk LFkkuh; Fkkuk xksxjh esa izkFkfedh ntZ dh xbZ] tks mDr d‘r fdz;kUo;u fu;e ds fo:n~/k gSA vr% vki nksuksa dk;Zikyd lgk;d mDr ds vkyksd esa viuk Li"Vhdj.k rhu fnuksa ds vUnj nsuk lqfuf’pr djsa fd D;ksa ugha vkidh lafonk lekIr dj nh tk;A** It is the petitioner who thereafter had himself filed his show cause reply and in order to be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would also quote the show cause reply which reads as follows:- ^^1- eSa ,d funksZ"k dk;Zikyd lgk;d gwW] rFkk ljdkjh vkoafVr dk;ksZa dk Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2013 (2) dt.01-02-2013 4 fu"iknu lwpk: iwoZd djrk vk jgk gwWA 2- ;g iwNk x;k gS fd 111 vkosnukss es ls Vscqy ij 65 gh ik;s x;s gSA bl lanHkZ esa eSa dguk pkgrk gwW fd eSaus dkxtkrksa esa dksbZ NsM+NkM+ ;k pksjh ;k dksbZ vU; vkoafNr dk;Z ugha fd;k gwWA blls esjk dksbZ vkpkj.kghu dk;Z gh ugha lEiUu fd;k gSA ljdkjh dk;kZy;ksa esa ;g ,d LFkkfir ifjikVh jgh gS fd lgk;d tc viuk dk;Z dk;kZy; esa fu"ikfnr ugha dj ikrs gSa rks vkokl ij ml dk;Z dk fu"iknu djrs jgs gSA ;g dksbZ cqjh uh;r ugha lkfcr gksrh gSA pwafd lHkh 111 vkosnu fdy gh tkrs gSA 3- ;g fd esjs ikl ls dksbZ uktk;t iSls gh ugha cjken fd;s x;sA 4- ;g fd lafonk esa mYysf[kr gLrksa dk eSaus dksbZ mYya?ku ugha fd;k gS vkSj u rks fcgkj xoZuesUV ljosZUVl daMDV :y esa izfrokfnr vkpkj lafgrk dk vfrdze.k fd;k gSA 5- ;g fd rFkk dfFkr vkjksi dh iqf"V iqfyl Mk;jh esa ugha gksus ds dkj.k esjh tekur dh vthZ eatwj dj yh x;hA Li"V gS fd yxk;s x;s vkjksi dsoy ykafNr djus dh dgkuh cu x;hA vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa fuosnu gS fd esjs Li"Vhdj.k dks Lohdkj djrs gq, tsy vof/k dks fuyafcr djrs gq, eq>s iqu% lsok esa iquLFkkfir djus dh d‘ik dh tk;A** From the reading of the show cause reply, it would therefore become very clear that the petitioner infact could not controvert the sudden inspection of the District Magistrate or the finding that 46 applications were missing from the office or that he had brought those applications from his house. If that was an admission on the part of the petitioner by way of show cause reply the rest of the submission of the learned counsel that it was not on account of any bad intention will be of no avail. In that view of the matter, the final Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2013 (2) dt.01-02-2013 5 order passed by the authority terminating the services of not only the petitioner but also of Sanjay Kumar does not suffer from any error. In the final order, the authority infact had held as follows:- ^^fnukad 08-08-2012 dks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds }kjk vapy dk;kZy; xksxjh dk vkSpd fujh{k.k ds dze esa vkj0Vh0ih0,l0 dkmUVj ij izkIr vkonuksa dh dqy la[;k 111 Fkk] ijUrq ogka ek= 65 vkosnu i= gh ik;k x;kA ’ks"k vkosnu i= dkmUVj ij ugha FkkA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku Jh jatu dqekj dk;Zikyd lgk;d ls iwNrkN djus ij muds }kjk ’ks"k vkonsu i= dks vius vkokl ls yk;s x;s tks fu;e ds fo:n~/k gSa Jh lat; dqekj] dk;Zikyd lgk;d Hkh bl dk;Z esa lafyIr ik;k x;kA mDr vkjksi esa nks dk;Zikyd lgk;d dks iqfyl fgjklr esa ys fy;k x;k ,oa dk;Zikyd n.Mkf/kdkjh xksxjh }kjk nksuksa dk;Zikyd lgk;dksa ds fo:n~/k mDr vkjksi esa izkFkfedh ntZ fd;k x;k ,oa Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh x;hA muds }kjk izkIr Li"Vhdj.k larks"ktud ugha ik;s x;sA ftls vLohd‘r dj fn;k x;kA vr% mDr vkjksi ds vkyksd esa Jh jatu dqekj ,oa Jh lat; dqekj dk;Zikyd lgk;d dk fu;kstu jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA** The concept of compliance of the principles of natural justice for contractual employee cannot be extended to the equivalence of departmental proceeding for a regular government servant. The petitioner is not a government servant and therefore, if he was found negligent in performance of his duty there was no question of going into his alleged intention in keeping those official applications in his house. As a matter of fact, a criminal case has also been lodged against the petitioner and the issue of rea Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2013 (2) dt.01-02-2013 6 can be gone into only in that criminal case. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)