Patna High Court
Dr. Kumar Sunil Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2024
Author: Anjani Kumar Sharan
Bench: Anjani Kumar Sharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5712 of 2021
======================================================
Dr. Kumar Sunil Sinha Son of Late Anuj Prasad Sinha Resident of Village-
Nerut, P.S.-Asthawan, District-Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar thorugh the Principal Secretary, Scheduled Caste and
Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Director, Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare
Department, Magadh Range, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahasweta Chatterjee
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP2
Mr. Shadwal Harsh, AC to GP2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:
"(i) That an appropriate writ may be issued
quashing the order dated 20/03/19, passed by the
Director respondent no.- 4, vide memo no.- 814 as
contained in Annexure- 10, passed in a
departmental proceeding against the petitioner
imposing the major punishment of compulsory
Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024
2/25
retirement to the petitioner.
(ii) That an appropriate writ may be issued
quashing the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the
Secretary, the respondent no.- 2, in appeal, issued
vide memo no.- 438 as contained in Annexure- 12
Whereby and whereunder the learned Secretary
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner
upholding the order passed by the Director
respondent no.- 4.
(iii) That an appropriate writ may be issued
quashing the order dated 28.12.2020 passed in
Revision petition filed by the petitioner as contained
in Annexure- 13 issued under the signature of the
Joint Secretary respondent no.- 3, Vide memo no.-
2482 by which the Hon'ble Minister rejected the
Revision petition filed by the petitioner affirming the
order passed by the Director in the departmental
proceeding conducted against the petitioner and the
order dated-22.06.2020 passed by the Secretary,
Respondent no.- 2 dismissing the appeal filed by the
petitioner.
(iv) Any other relief/s for which the petitioner is
found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
3. The short facts of the present case is that the
petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in
English against graduate trained post under Welfare Department
by an order dated 04.11.1994 and he was posted in Rajgir
Residential High School where he joined on 15.11.1994,
thereafter, he was continuously discharging duty. The in-charge
headmaster Shri Umesh Prasad retired on 30.09.2015, thereafter,
the petitioner being the senior most in the school, was entrusted
with the duty of incharge Head Master of that school. The
petitioner became the in-charge Head Master on 30.09.2015 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024
3/25
Arwal Ambedkar Residential Girls High School, Arwal
(hereinafter referred as, "the school"). The owner of M/s Raju
(hereinafter referred as, "the caterer") Canteen, Patna, who used
to supply food to the inmates of the Hostel of the school, was
not supplying food as per the menu fixed by the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department (hereinafter
referred as, "the Department"). During the monthly meetings
conducted by the Divisional Deputy Director, the petitioner
raised objections numerous times regarding the substandard
food provided to the girl students of the hostel by the caterer and
prior to that, the petitioner also mentioned in the order book of
the school regarding the insufficient stale food served to the
inmates and also directed the caterer to provide food at par with
the menu and to provide green vegetables and fresh food. This
led to a complaint to the Chairman, Rajya Mahadalit Aayog,
who made a surprise inspection of the School and Hostel and by
a Letter no.-808 dated 19.01.2016, submitted a report to the
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department,
confirming the authenticity of the complaint. The Deputy
Director, upon making an inspection himself and ascertaining
the same, directed to deduct 20% from the voucher of the
caterer for the months of February-March 2016 respectively, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024
4/25
the enquiry report dated- 19.03.2016 was submitted to the
concerned Department. As per the system, the only duty of the
Head master was to provide the list of the number of the
students for whom the food is to be supplied and it is District
Welfare Officer (hereinafter referred as, "D.W.O.") who used to
make payment by cheque. However, the D.W.O. did not comply
with the direction of the Deputy Director and made payment to
Raju Quraisi without deducting aforesaid 20% on 19.03.2016,
The caterer submitted the entire voucher to the D.W.O. for the
month of February, prior to issuance of the cheque. The caterer,
upon getting to know about the direction for deduction of 20%,
got annoyed and lodged a complaint before Superintendent of
Police vigilance on 28.03.2016 alleging that the petitioner had
demanded bribe of 6000/- from him for handing over the
voucher of the month of March to him.
4. After the Holi holidays the petitioner joined on
28.03.2016and on 31.03.2016 when the petitioner was discharging his duty, suddenly some force of vigilance came and started assaulting him and forcefully dumped him into their car, on the basis of the complaint filed by the caterer and sent him to the custody as a result of which the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 18.04.2016 vide memo no.-3581 with effect from Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 5/25 31/03/2016 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. By an order vide memo no. 4445 dated 17.06.2016, charged was framed in form "क" against the petitioner in which the Deputy Director was appointed as conducting officer and District Welfare Officer, Arwal, was made as representing officer in which the petitioner appeared and filed his show cause (first show cause).
5. The conducting officer, initially, without examining the caterer Raju Quaraisi and the Security guard and officers of vigilance submitted enquiry report, which was returned for examining the caterer and others and then to file enquiry report. Thereafter, Raju Quaraisi, Kavita Devi and Ramprit Chaudhary both Security Guards of the school and two teachers, namely, Suresh Chaudhary and Vijay Kumar were examined in the departmental proceeding and an enquiry report vide memo no.- 3104 dated 05.11.2018 was submitted by the conducting officer. In the enquiry report the conducting officer has exonerated the petitioner from 3 charges and the witnesses also have stated that they have not witnessed any occurrence of taking bribe by the petitioner inspite of that reason best known to him, by a letter vide memo no 3104 dated 26.12.2018 issued second show cause notice under Rule 14 (IX) of C.C.A. Rule Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 6/25 2005 for the purpose of Imposing major punishment to the petitioner (Annexure-8 of the writ application).
6. After receiving the second show cause notice as contained in Annexure- 8, petitioner filed his reply on 10.01.2019 as to how, in absence of any evidence no major punishment can be imposed to him (Annexure-9 of the writ application). From the enquiry report, it is clear that the Conducting Officer exonerated the petitioner from 3 charges and also came to the conclusion that there was no voucher pending in the month of March. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to demand for bribe with regard to Charge no.- 4 wherein it is mentioned by the Conducting Officer that prima facie it seems that the charge 4 is proved. The Director respondent no.- 4, by an order dated 20.03.2019 vide memo no. 814 has imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement to the petitioner (Annexure-10 of the writ application).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental enquiry total 4 witnesses were examined out of which 2 were security guards, who have stated before the conducting officer that the police force compelled them to put their signature on blank paper under threat and also have stated clearly that none of them have witnessed taking any bribe by the Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 7/25 petitioner nor have witnessed giving bribe to the petitioner by Raju Quraisi, and two remaining witnesses are Sri Vijay Kumar Singh and Suresh Choudhary, both are Assistant Teacher in Girls High School where the petitioner was Head Master and the Vijay Kumar Singh have stated before the conducting officer that Dilendra Kumar, the District Welfare Officer, has committed financial irregularity in conducting the Mess and Suresh Choudhary has clearly stated that at the time of trapping, he was present in the office and also stated that the force dragged the petitioner to the vehicle and has also clearly stated that the vigilance in collusion with caterer has implicated the petitioner falsely, all the charges leveled against the petitioner are false, incorrect and malicious. Both the Security guards, namely, Kabita Kumari and Ramkrit Choudhary have stated before the conducting officer that vigilance force forcibly took their signature on plain paper none of them have witnessed any occurrence of taking or demanding bribe by the petitioner or any recovery (Annexure-11 series to the writ application).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the illegal order of the Director the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Secretary, the respondent no.- 2, for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2019 Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 8/25 of Director as contained in Annexure-10 but the Secretary also without appreciating the points raised in the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner, in a most mechanical manner, has dismissed the appeal by an order vide memo no.- 438 dated- 22.06.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner also preferred a Revision before the Hon'ble Minister SC/ST welfare department on 17.06.2020 for setting aside the order passed by the director and the Secretary in appeal the Hon'ble Minister also without appreciating the facts and legal points raised by the petitioner, has dismissed the revision petition without assigning any reason by an order dated 28.12.2020 vide Memo No. 2482 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar (Annexure-13 to the writ application).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed by the Director as contained in Annexure- 10, it is evident that the major punishment has been imposed to the petitioner only on the ground that he was arrested and sent to custody by the vigilance without discussing the charge or without assigning any reason as to how he was satisfied that charges demanding bribe framed against the petitioner are established to enable him to impose major punishment. He further submits that the Respondent No. Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 9/25 4, the Director, while issuing impugned order, has failed to appreciate that the conducting officer has exonerated the petitioner from charge no.- 1 to 3 and also mentioned in the inquiry report that "शश ससिन्हहा कक सजिम्महा ककोई भश असभशव भभुगतहान हकतभु ललंसबित नहहीं थहा इसिसलए असभशव भकजिनक कक सलए सरिश्वत ममांगनक कश सशिकहायत दभुभर्भावनहा सिक पकसरित पसरिलसक्षित हह"I
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.- 4, the Director should have appreciated that demanding bribe by the petitioner from Raju Quraisi for handing over voucher is the foundation of initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, when the charge of demanding bribe is not established all the allegations fail and no punishment could have been imposed to the petitioner. He further submits that while passing the impugned order dated- 20.03.2019, the Director has failed to appreciate that the Letter No.- 155 (k) dated 26.03.2016 requesting the In-charge Head Master for handing over the voucher to Raju Quraisi was never received in the School since the School was closed for Holi Holiday from 21.03.2016 to 27.03.2016 and the Teacher who was entrusted with the duty of In-charge Headmaster during that period also has issued a Certificate, stating that the letter no- 155 (k) dated 26.03.2016 never received in the office, therefore, Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 10/25 the basis of the demanding bribe for handing over voucher is not constituted.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without establishing any charges against the petitioner regarding demanding and accepting the bribe, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence only on the basis of Charge No.- 4 no major punishment could have been imposed to the petitioner since the charge no.- 4 is statement of fact only. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the respondent no.- 4 the order dated 20.03.2019 as contained in Annexure-10 is bad and illegal and fit to be set aside.
vkjksi i=
dz0 vkjksi Lkk{;
la0
01 Mk Hkhejko vEcsMdj vuq0 tkfr ckfydk jktq dSaVhu ds lapkyd
vkoklh; mPp fo|ky;] vjoy esa esl eks0 jktw dqjS"kh }kjk lapkyu dk dk;Z dj jgs eks0 jktw dwjS"kh }kjk izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid dks fnukad 20-03-2016 dks izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid ls fnukad 20-03-2016 dks ekg ekpZ 2016 ls vcrd dh Nk=k mifLFkfr fn;k x;k i=A bUMsaV dh ekax dh xbZ rkfd esl lapkyu O;;
dh fudklh gks ldsA 02 fo|ky; ds esl lapkyd eks0 jktw dwjS"kh }kjk ftyk dY;k.k izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid dks fnukad 20-03-2016 dks inkf/kdkjh] vjoy }kjk fn, x, i= dh ftyk dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh dh izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid MkW0 izfrfyfi ds vkyksd esa izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid dks Hkhejko vEcsMdj vuq0 lkexzh ,oa iwfrZ;ka en esa vkoaVu "ks'k jgus tkfr vkoklh; ckfydk rFkk fnukad 20-03-2016 rd dk Nk=k mPp fo|ky;] vjoy mifLFkfr bUMsaV miyC/k djkus gsrq i= Hkstk dks i=kad 155^d^ x;k rkfd lkexzh ,oa iwfrZ;ka en esa vo"ks'k fnukad 26-03-16 }kjk vkoaVu ls mDr frfFk rd ds esl lapkyu fn;k x;k i=A O;; dh fudklh dh tk lds rFkk jkf"k izR;kfiZr u gksA 03 jktw dSaVhu ds lapkyd eks0 jktw dqjS"kh }kjk iqfyl v/kh{kd fuxjkuh Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 11/25 fnukad 28-03-2016 dks iqfyl v/kh{kd] vUos'k.k C;wjks] fcgkj] fuxjkuh Fkkuk iVuk dks MkW0 Hkhejko vEcsMdj iVuk }kjk MkW0 dqekj vuq0 tkfr vkoklh; ckfydk mPp fo|ky;] lquhy flUgk izHkkjh vjoy ds iz/kkuk/;kid MkW0 dqekj lquhy iz/kkuk/;kid Mk0 flUgk }kjk 6000-00 ¼N% gtkj½ :i;s fj"or Hkhejko vEcsMdj vuq0 dh ekax fd, tkus ds dkj.k dkuwuh djokbZ tkfr ckfydk vkoklh; djus gsrq i= fn;k x;k rFkk fuxjkuh vUos'k.k mPp fo|ky;] vjoy C;wjks] fcgkj] iVuk }kjk dkjokbZ dh xbZA dks eks0 6000-00 ¼N% gtkj :i;s½ fj"or ysrs jaxs gkFk fxjQ~rkj fd, tkus dh lwpuk rFkk fuxjkuh Fkkuk dk.M la[;k 034@2016 fnukad 31-03-2016 ntZ fd, tkus dh lwpuk i=kad 635@vi0"kk0 fnukad 06-04-2016 }kjk foHkkx dks nh xbZA ftyk dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh] vjoy ds i=kad 185 ^d^ fnukad 01-04-16 ds }kjk Hkh MkW0 dqekj lquhy flUgk dks fuxjkuh Vhe }kjk fj"or ysrs jaxs gkFk fxjQ~rkj fd;s tkus dh lwpuk foHkkx dks nh xbZA 04 fuxjkuh Vhe iVuk }kjk fxjQ~rkj fd, tkus funs"kd vuq0 tkfr ,oa ds dkj.k U;kf;d fgjklr esa tsy Hkstk x;kA vuq0 tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad 3581 fnukad 18-
04-2016 }kjk MkW0 dqekj
lquhy flUgk dks
fuxjkuh ny }kjk
fj"or ysrs jaxs gkFk
idMs+ tkus ds dkj.k
rRdky izHkko ls
fuyafcr fd;k x;kA
bl izdkj rRdkyhu izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid MkW0 Hkhejko vEcsMdj vuq0 tkfr ckfydk vkoklh; mPp fo|ky;] vjoy MkW0 dqekj lquhy flUgk ij ljdkjh lsod ds :i esa "kkyfu'Bk ugha j[kus] drZO; ds izfr fu'Bk ugha j[kus rFkk ,slk dke djus tks ljdkjh lsod ds fy, v"kksHkuh; gS] dk vkjksi ,oa Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 12/25 lk{; gS rFkk fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpkj fu;ekoyh 1976 ds fu;e 3 dh vogsyuk gSA
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is being victimized by the department from the very beginning, he was suspended by an order dated 18.07.2016 with effect from 31.03.2016 which was not vacated even after submission of the enquiry report by the conducting Officer, though he was granted bail, for which the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No.- 5945/2018, in which by an order dated 19.09.2018, it was ordered to complete the departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner failing which the suspension of the petitioner would be automatically vacated, inspite of the order neither the departmental proceeding was completed within two weeks nor the suspension of the petitioner was vacated. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 4968/2018 on 10.12.2018 and it is after filing the contempt petition before the Hon'ble High Court the suspension was vacated by an order dated 26.12.2018. In this background, it is submitted that the disciplinary authority was determined to impose the punishment to the petitioner therefore, inspite of the fact that there is no material available on record for proving the charges the major punishment has been imposed which only shows the malafide intention of the respondent authority for Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 13/25 daring to protest against the D.W.O. in his collusion with the caterer. The respondent authority also did not pay the petitioner subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, therefore, being compelled the petitioner filed CW.JC No. 11044 of 2017 for payment of subsistence allowance and it is when the case was taken and the court directed the state to file show cause thereafter, the department started subsistence allowance to the petitioner.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 2 (the Secretary) was required to assign the reason in the order vide No. 438 as contained in Annexure-12 dated 22.06.2020 as to why the ground raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal was rejected. The Hon'ble Minister also without application of mind, in a most mechanical manner, has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner without assigning any reason and even didn't provide the reasonable opportunity for making the representation against the complaint by an order dated 28.12.2020 as contained in Annexure-13.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 14/25 Apex Court passed in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713, in paragraph 17, wherein it is held as follow:
"17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case [AIR 1963 SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority." (emphasis added)
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1999 SC 3734, in paragraph 54, it is held as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 15/25 "54. In the instant case, we have scrutinized the reasons of the Disciplinary Committee and have found that it had taken its final decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant at the stage at which it proposed to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. We have also found that the complainant's story with regard to the place at which the demand was allegedly made by the appellant was inconsistent. We have also noticed that the trap laid by ACB, Nagpur against the appellant had failed and was held by the enquiry officer to be a farce and not having been laid with the permission of the Chief Justice.
We have also noticed that there was absolute non-consideration of the statements of defence witnesses, namely, Dr Naranje and Mr Bapat, Advocate, by the Disciplinary Committee. This factor in itself was sufficient to vitiate the findings recorded by that Committee contrary to the findings of the enquiry officer." (emphasis added)
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in AIR 1991 SC 471.
17. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which it is stated that charges against the petitioner pertains to his being caught red-handed while taking bribe by the Vigilance Team on 31.03.2016 which was reported to the department by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau vide its letter no. 635 dated 06.04.2016 and in view of the said reported charges, petitioner was suspended vide the departmental order contained in memo. no. 3581 dated 18.04.2016 w.e.f. 31.03.2016 following the Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 16/25 procedure laid down under Rule-9 (2) of Bihar Govt. Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 and called for Prapatra-K from the District Welfare Officer, Arwal.
18. The District Welfare Officer made available to the department, the memo of charges framed at Prapatra-K on 25.05.2016 and pursuant to that following the procedures contained in Rule-17 of Bihar Govt. Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005, vide departmental order memo. no. 4445 dated 17.06.2021, decision to institute departmental proceedings against the petitioner for the aforesaid charges was taken by the Disciplinary Authority for which Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya was appointed as Conducting Officer, whereas District Welfare Officer, Arwal named as Presenting Officer and copy of the same along with memo of charges at Prapatra-K and evidence related thereof was communicated to the petitioner with direction to appear before conducting officer (Annexure-B of the counter affidavit).
19. The Conducting Officer submitted its enquiry report after conducting enquiry to the department vide letter no. 48 dated 15.02.2018, after conducting enquiry and Disciplinary Authority after thoroughly examining the enquiry report, other relevant documents/evidence available on the record and Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 17/25 looking into the totality of the entire aspect further observed that petitioner should have been given an opportunity by way of asking second show cause and, accordingly, petitioner was served second show cause vide departmental letter no. 531 dated 27.02.2018 which was replied by him within time (Annexure-C of the counter affidavit).
20. Upon proper review of the Prapatra-K, enquiry report, reply to the second show cause and other documentary evidence available on the record, the Disciplinary Authority returned the enquiry report to the Conducting Officer vide letter no. 1011 dated 19.04.2018 owing to non- examination of key witnesses like members of Vigilance Raid Team, Mess Controller, and then District Welfare Officer and in the interest of justice, issued direction to the enquiry officer to ensure recalling aforesaid witnesses for speedy examination as cogent evidence in the matter that was felt necessary and decisive and also to make related report available to department at earliest possible. In response to the aforesaid direction of the Disciplinary Authority, the Conducting Officer submitted its comprehensive report with findings to the department vide letter no. 317 dated 05.11.2018 in which charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proven and shown to be involved in Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 18/25 the corruption related to taking bribe and after proper review of the same petitioner was asked second show cause vide departmental letter no. 3104 dated 26.12.2018 which was replied to on time.
21. Upon in-depth review of Prapatra-K framed against the petitioner, findings/enquiry report of the Conducting Officer, reply to the second show-cause, deposition/statement given by the key witnesses viz. members of the Vigilance raid team, the then District Welfare Officer concerned, and Mess Controller, it was found that the act of petitioner while taking bribe and being caught red-handed by the Vigilance raid team is violative of Bihar Govt. Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 and Bihar Govt. Servants Conducts Rules, 1976 and clearly shows the involvement of petitioner in the corruption and charges levelled against him is proven.
22. In view of the above circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority, considering all aspects of the matter, found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid charges and inflicted the major punishment of compulsory retirement vide departmental order Memo. No. 814 dated 20.03.2019 and the same was passed in conformity with the statutory prescriptions underlying the Disciplinary Rules under Rule- 14(ix) of Bihar Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 19/25 Govt. Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 and hereby, a departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner has been concluded.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner preferred service appeal under Rules 23/24 of the Bihar Govt. Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 before the Appellate Authority, i.e. Departmental Secretary. In the course of hearing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner could not defend himself or produce any new facts or evidence to disprove the aforesaid serious charges levelled against him; hence, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order memo no. 438 dated 22.06.2020 following the procedure laid down under Rule 27(2)(c)(i) of the Bihar Govt. Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 and affirmed the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Departmental order no. 814 dated 20.03.2019.
24. Lenard counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner submitted an application before Hon'ble Departmental Minister on 16.07.2020 for revision of the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority and after proper review of the relevant documents and evidence available on the record, the Hon'ble Minister rejected the application of revision given by the petitioner and affirmed the orders of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 20/25 Appellate Authority and the Disciplinary Authority and same was communicated to the petitioner vide memo. no. 2482 dated 28.12.2020 under the signature of the Joint Secretary of the Department.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the witnesses were examined during the departmental proceeding, namely, the vigilance officer and the caterer has supported the incident and the petitioner was caught red-handed by the vigilance, this fact is not denied by the petitioner during the inquiry.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent further relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dalbir Singh reported in AIR 2021 SC 4504 in paragraph 22, 23 and 24 it is held as under:
22. This Court in Union of India and Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 had laid down the broad parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 616-17, paras 12-13) "12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 21/25 shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
23. In another judgment reported as B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 22/25 it was held that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court is to examine as to whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. This Court held as under : (SCC pp. 759- 60, paras 12-13) "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold enquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 23/25 Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 :
AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
24. This Court in Management of T.N. State Transport Corpn. (Coimbatore) Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekaran (2016) 16 SCC 16 held that in exercise of power of judicial review, the Labour Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and in substituting his own judgment to that of the disciplinary authority. It was not a case of no legal evidence. The question as to decision of the disciplinary authority of dismissing the respondent is just and proper could be assailed by the respondent in appropriate proceedings. Considering the fact that there was adequate material produced in the departmental enquiry evidencing that fatal accident was caused by the respondent while driving the vehicle on duty, the burden to prove that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence was on the respondent. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the fact situation. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 21, para 11) "11. The respondent on the other hand contends that the Commissioner has applied the well-settled legal position that there can be no presumption of misconduct by the employees. That, charge must be proved by the Department during the enquiry. Non-
Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 24/25 examination of the material witnesses such as eyewitnesses present on the spot, conductor and passengers, travelling on the same bus was fatal. For, it entails in not substantiating the charges against the respondent and failure to discharge the initial onus resting on the Department to prove the charge as framed. According to the respondent, no fault can be found with the tangible reasons recorded by the Commissioner as noticed by the Single Judge (reproduced above); and resultantly, the conclusion of the Commissioner of not according approval to the order of dismissal is just and proper. It is submitted that the Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent and issuing direction to the appellant to reinstate him with back wages and continuity of service and all attendant benefits accrued to him."
27. Having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra), which is not applicable in the present case as charge-sheet, enquiry report and other documents have been given to the petitioner during the departmental proceeding. Further, it is well settled principle that the High Court only examine the decision making process and not the decision itself, at present case there is no irregularity in the decision making process. The nature of punishment which can be imposed on an employee is absolutely a prerogative of the appointing authority. The Court ordinarily does not substitute opinion in such matter under Article 226 of Patna High Court CWJC No.5712 of 2021 dt.19-08-2024 25/25 the Constitution of India.
28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of records, it appears that there is no illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority.
29. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 11.07.2024 Uploading Date 19.08.2024 Transmission Date NA