The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 3561 of 2022 ---------- Purnshankar Bhagat, son of late Bifan Oraon, resident of Baresar, P.O. & P.S. Baresar, Disti. Latehar, Jharkhand ………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Schedule Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, M.D.I. Building, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Director Welfare, Palamu Division, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Schedule Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, Palamu-822101, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, Collectorate Building, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, Palamu-822101, Jharkhand. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar Collectorate Buildig, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Medninagar, Palamu-822101, Jharkhand. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- ………. Respondents. For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
05/ 16.10.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : : ----------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III 2. In the instant writ petition petitioner confines his prayer with respect to quashing of the order dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-6) by which the disciplinary authority differing with the report of the enquiry officer has ordered for de novo enquiry against the petitioner. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was working to the post of Welfare Supervisor, Latehar. It is the case of petitioner that a direction was given by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Latehar vide letter No. 1326 dated 04.12.2019 by which he was asked to enquire about the students whose names are given in the portal through application as to whether they are actually studying in the schools or not and submit a report 1 to that effect. After enquiry, though petitioner submitted his report, but an allegation was levelled against him that he has wrongly recommended names of 341 students of Al Jametullslamiya Vidyalaya, 258 students of BMC Maktab School and 272 students of Residential School for extending the benefits of Minority Scholarship. On the above allegation, the petitioner was put under suspension till further orders vide memo No. 468 dated 22.02.2021 under the Rules 9(1)(b) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (for short “CCA Rules, 2016”). Thereafter, the petitioner was issued Prapatra-Ka for the charge that he had wrongly recommended the names of the students for grant of scholarship for the year 2019-20 and had committed dereliction of duty and petitioner was asked to submit his reply to which he replied denying the charges levelled against him. However, being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, in which the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 07.04.2022 partially exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled and recommended for revocation of suspension order. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that despite the proceeding was conducted in accordance with law but again he was issued another memo No. 1462 dated 20.05.2022 in which it was stated that the order of the Enquiry Officer suffers from various errors and the same was conducted with gross negligence, therefore, it is decided by the respondents to conduct another enquiry against the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously urges that respondent-authorities have committed gross misconduct by initiating a de novo enquiry against the petitioner for the same set of charges. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd departmental proceeding without any proper reasoning and justification is completely bad 2 in law and must be set aside. A second departmental enquiry for the same very charge in absence of any lacunas in the 1st departmental enquiry is not permissible in law. Learned counsel submits that once the enquiry is conducted, fresh enquiry cannot be ordered by appointing another enquiry officer and such action, being bad in law, must be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that when the report submitted by the enquiry officer was admitted by the disciplinary authority and a copy thereof was forwarded to the delinquent any order for fresh enquiry is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel lastly submits that the action of the respondent-authorities is arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable and in utter violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore must be struck down with immediate effect. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on examination of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority found that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry fairly and the report submitted by him is of superficial in nature. As such, the disciplinary authority did not accept the enquiry report and decided to enquire the matter afresh by appointing a different enquiry officer. Therefore, vide departmental memo No. 1462 dated 20.05.2022, an enquiry officer has been appointed and directed to enquire the matter afresh and submit the report which is still awaited. Learned counsel further argues that for the facts stated above it is crystal clear that petitioner is not entitled for any relief and as such, the writ application filed by him is fit to be dismissed in limine. 7. Having heard the rival submission of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, before taking the decision for conducting another enquiry, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The law is well settled that in case of difference of opinion with 3 the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, after assigning reason, can order for a further enquiry and not for a fresh enquiry. 8. The said issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that “if there is some difficulty in the inquiry conducted by the Investigating Officer, the disciplinary authority can direct the Enquiry Officer to conduct further inquiries in respect of that matter but it cannot direct for fresh inquiry to be conducted by some other Enquiry Officer”. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 has held that: “On General Principles, there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct and that is also what the rules usually provide. If, for some technical or other good ground, procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second enquiry cannot be initiated. Therefore, when a completed enquiry proceedings is set aside by a competent forum on a technical or on the ground of procedural infirmity, is permissible.” fresh proceedings on the same charges Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. K.D. Pandey, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 has held as under: “5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the Board had examined the material on record and come to the conclusion that four of the six charges could be proved on the available material, which has not been properly examined in the earlier inquiry. In fact from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that part of the file where the inquiry made earlier is discussed, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we fail to understand as to how there could have been a remit to the inquiry authority for further inquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of the inquiry authority is in accord with that of the disciplinary authority and it would be 4 abuse of the process of law. In that view of the matter, we think that the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, we decline to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.” 9. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, order dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-6) being not sustainable in the eyes of law, are hereby quashed and set aside, for the following facts and reasons:- I) Admittedly, an enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer after hearing the parties and perusing the documents partially exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. II) As such, there was no occasion for conducting a de novo and fresh enquiry as without assigning any reason for differing with the first enquiry report, the disciplinary authority had ordered for second/fresh enquiry, which is impermissible in the eyes of law, as after differing with enquiry report and following the principle of natural justice, a further enquiry could have been initiated and not a fresh enquiry. III) There has been complete violation of principle of audi alteram partem since no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his reply regarding holding of 2nd/ fresh enquiry. 10. In view of quashment of the impugned orders, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 5