Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kapil Muni Rai on 7 August, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.755 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12527 of 2010
With
Interlocutory Application No. 3365 of 2011
With
Interlocutory Application No. 3366 of 2011
In
Letters Patent Appeal No. 755 of 2011
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy State Transport Commissioner-cum-Enquiry Officer, Bihar,
Patna.
.... .... Appellants/Respondents
Versus
Kapil Muni Rai, S/o Late Ram Keshwar Rai, R/o 268 Krishi Nagar (A.G.
Colony), P.S.-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.
.... .... Respondent/Petitioner
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 10
Mr. Sunil Kumar, A.C. to AAG 10
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 07-08-2012Re. Interlocutory Application No. 3365 of 2011:
The delay of 177 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 755 of 2011:
This Appeal preferred by the State of Bihar under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 23rd September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in 2 Patna High Court LPA No.755 of 2011 (4) dt.07-08-2012 2/4 CWJC No. 12527 of 2010.
The matter at dispute is the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner, a Motor Vehicle Inspector, under the memorandum of charge dated 6th November 2009. Pursuant to the raid conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, the writ petitioner was found to be in possession of the property worth Rs. 1,02,00,000/- beyond the known sources of income. Pursuant to the said incidence, a criminal prosecution has been lodged against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Pursuant to the said incidence, a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the writ petitioner for amassing wealth beyond the known source of income. By order dated 2nd November 2009 he has been placed under suspension pending the disciplinary proceeding.
Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 12527 of 2010. The writ petitioner challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceeding pending the criminal trial and the aforesaid order dated 2nd November 2009. The learned single Judge has rejected the challenge to the order of suspension. However, challenge to the disciplinary proceeding has been upheld. The learned single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [AIR 1988 SC 2118] and; of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [(1999) 3 SCC 679] to hold that in respect of the same set of charges the criminal case and the disciplinary proceeding will not proceed 3 Patna High Court LPA No.755 of 2011 (4) dt.07-08-2012 3/4 simultaneously. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge has directed that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner shall remain stayed till the disposal of the criminal trial. Therefore, this Appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. Anjani Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge. He has submitted that the aforesaid judgment in the matter of Capt. M.Paul Anthony has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the later judgment. He has submitted that in the matters like the present, the disciplinary proceeding cannot be delayed until the criminal case is disposed of. In support of his submission, Mr. Anjani Kumar has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others Vs. Sarvesh Berry [(2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 471]; of Pashupati Nath Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2003(3) PLJR 131] and; of Rasheed Alam Vs. The State Bank of India & Ors. [2003(4) PLJR 62].
Learned Advocate Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava has appeared for the respondent-writ petitioner. He has supported the judgment of the learned single Judge. He has submitted that the very F.I.R. filed in the criminal case is the basis of the disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the disciplinary proceeding shall not be allowed to continue pending the criminal case.
We agree with the learned counsel Mr. Anjani Kumar. In view of the above referred later judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that even in the case like present, pending the criminal case, the disciplinary proceeding can proceed against the delinquent-the writ petitioner for amassing wealth beyond his known sources of income.4 Patna High Court LPA No.755 of 2011 (4) dt.07-08-2012 4/4
For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge to the extent CWJC No. 12527 of 2010 is allowed, is set aside. CWJC No. 12527 of 2010 is dismissed.
Interlocutory Application No. 3366 of 2011 stands disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Sujit/-