Ram Singar Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to GP-II --------- Order No. 7/Dated: 4 th December 2023 The petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 19th April 2018 on the ground that the departmental authorities have failed to address the defense set forth by him in the domestic inquiry and his reply to the second show cause notice has not been considered at all.

The petitioner while working as Junior Engineer received a charge memo in prapatra-ka on the allegation that (i) 34 bitumen invoices were not verified by him; (ii) he did not follow the instruction issued by the Chief Secretary vide order dated 30th March 1982 in order to ensure compliance of clause-10 of the Agreement; (iii) he failed to perform the duty under clause 243 of the Bihar PWD Code; and (iv) he acted in violation of Rule 34 of the Bihar Finance Rules. In the domestic inquiry, the petitioner submitted his defense statement denying all the charges. The inquiring officer however found all four charges proved and submitted a report on 7th October 2016 whereafter a second show cause notice was issued to him on 3rd January 2017. The disciplinary authority after having considered the materials on 2 WP(S) No. 976 of 2020 record imposed the punishments of lowering down of the scale to the lowest scale of the post and no promotion till retirement. Vide letter dated 31st December 2019, the petitioner has also been asked to refund the excess amount received by him. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred a statutory appeal which has been dismissed by an order dated 20th June 2019.

A writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not interfere with the findings of fact recorded in a properly constituted departmental inquiry. After all, the writ Court is not constituted as a Court of appeal which can re-appreciate the materials produced in the domestic inquiry. This is also beyond any doubt that sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence shall not be an issue which can be agitated in a proceeding for certiorari.

In “State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Shree Rama Rao” AIR 1963 SC 1723 has held as under:

7.…The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.

The disciplinary authority in the order dated 19th April 2018 has recorded that the petitioner did not provide any new material in his reply to the second show cause notice and he only reiterated his stand taken in the domestic inquiry. The disciplinary authority has further recorded his definite opinion that due to negligence on the part of the petitioner payment was made to the contractor which caused loss to the Government revenue. The appellate authority has noticed that 34 bitumen invoices in connection to which the petitioner was chargesheeted were found forged by the Central Bureau of Investigation. These facts are indisputable and negligence of the petitioner stood proved. The appellate authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the inquiry officer found all the charges framed against the 3 WP(S) No. 976 of 2020 petitioner vide prapatra-ka dated 20th August 2013 proved. In these facts, the appellate authority declined to interfere with the punishment order and this Court also finds no justification for any interference in the matter.

Finding no reason to interfere in this matter, W.P.(S) No. 976 of 2020 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Amit/Tanuj