Patna High Court
Chandradip Sinha vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)IILLJ706PAT
Author: B.P. Singh
Bench: B.P. Singh
ORDER B.P. Singh, A.C.J. and S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.
1. We have heard Counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge of this Court upholding the order imposing minor punishments of censure, recovery and stoppage of increments with non-cumulative effect. From the record it appears that such punishments were imposed earlier against the appellant, and aggrieved by that order imposing the punishments the appellant had preferred a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 4444 of 1995. By order dated January 22, 1996, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated November 7, 1994 imposing punishments was quashed with liberty to respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the appellant in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. This Court after considering the material placed before it came to the conclusion that neither the disciplinary authority referred to the charges levelled against the appellant nor to the explanation offered by him and, therefore, the order was not legally sustainable as it appeared to have been passed without considering the representation of the appellant. The disciplinary authority was required by Rule 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules to consider the representation preferred by the concerned employee and only after coming to a definite finding of guilt, to impose a punishment.
3. After the order of this Court the appellant was given a detailed show-cause notice, which was produced as Annexure-18 in the writ petition, dated May 11, 1996. It is not disputed before us that the appellant fifed his show-cause replying to the allegations made against him which is Annexure-19 to the writ petition, and after consideration of the same the impugned order imposing punishment was passed on November 23, 1996, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. We have perused the said order, and we find that it suffers from the same infirmity, as the earlier order. Though some facts have been mentioned, particularly those relating to earlier proceeding before this Court, there is hardly any consideration of the plea that may have been set up by the appellant in his defence. A mere perusal of the order does not even give an indication as to whether the appellant admitted his guilt or whether he disputed the allegations made against him. It is not expected that the disciplinary authority should write a judgment in the same manner as Courts, do, but an order imposing a punishment under Rule 55-A of the Rules must at least disclose application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the facts of the case and the reasons for the conclusions reached, even though they may be stated briefly.
4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that after the respondents submitted that after the appellant had filed his show-cause the matter was considered at length by the disciplinary authority, and the file of the case would disclose that there was a detailed consideration of the plea set up by the appellant. The disciplinary authority after applying its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the charges against the appellant had been established. It is only thereafter that he imposed the three punishments.
5. We are not called upon to say at this stage that the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind to all the relevant material on record. All that we say is that the order imposing punishment does not disclose the application of mind because it does not consider even briefly the defence of the appellant nor does it record any reasons for rejection of the plea set up by the appellant.
6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order dated November 23, 1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained, and the same is quashed. This appeal is, accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated January 5, 1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 5022 of 1997 is set aside. We direct the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. We may only indicate at this stage that in passing the order imposing punishment the disciplinary authority must consider briefly the allegations made against the appellant, the defence set up by him and the reasons, even if briefly, for the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority.