Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Dr. U.N. Biswas, IPS, (WB : 68), while posted as Joint Director (East), CBI, Calcutta and during the course of supervision of AHD Cases of Bihar failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct in as much as he acted irresponsibly and in excess of his authority in a manner unbecoming of a member of the All India Service in that :

On 29/30.7.1997, he on his own and without prior approval and authorisation from the Director, CBI, and without justification and authority and in violation of the law for calling army help in aid of civil authority had initiated and pursued steps for deployment of the army in the matter of execution of Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Special Court against Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav. Ex-Chief Minister of Bihar, who figured as an accused in CBI Case No. RC-20(A)/96-PAT. In pursuance of his illegal orders. SP, CBI, AHD, Patna. Shri V.S.K. Kaumudl submitted a written requisition to the local army authorities on 30.7.97 morning for deployment of army personnel for execution of Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest against Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav at Patna. This direction given by Dr. U.N. Biswas to his subordinate authorities was Illegal and reflected lack of knowledge and was an exercise in excess of his authority and he thereby displayed lack of devotion to duty and contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968."

"that Dr. U.N. Blswas. IPS, (WB:68). Joint Director (East). CBI. Calcutta, who was posted since 25.7.94 as JD (East) with HQ at Calcutta and on 30.7.1997 in order to execute Non-Bailable Warrant against Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, Ex-Chief Minister against whom charge-sheet had been filed by the CBI Instructed S/Shri V.S. Kaumudi, S.P. AHD, Patna and Rakesh Kumar. Standing Counsel to seek help of the army which was not at all warranted and contrary to the law laid down for use of armed forces in aid to civil authorities, the execution of Non-Bailable Warrant is not a purpose for which army assistance can be called. Moreover, this was done despite DIG, AHD, Patna, Shri R.N. Kaul's verbal request to him asking not to call the army in such manner without consulting the Director, CBI to which Dr. U.N. Blswas did not pay heed and pursued for the steps for requisitioning the army unauthorisedly and thereby displayed lack of knowledge, insubordination and committed misconduct in violation of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct)) Rules. 1968."

5. It is not necessary to go into the details of the background and/or the case Itself as the subject matter for consideration by this court is the initiation of a departmental proceeding against Dr. U.N. Biswas for writing a letter by one of his subordinates under his directions to the Army Authorities of the State of Bihar for the purpose of effecting the non-bailable warrant of arrest Issued by the court and that as a matter of fact the Army Authorities refused to deploy army for the aforesaid purpose and it appears that before any arrest could be made or was made, Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav surrendered before the court whereupon he was taken into the custody. In other words, the sum and substance of the charge is that Dr. U.N. Biswas, Joint Director (East), CBI, Calcutta was charged that for directing one of his subordinate to write a letter to the Army Authorities for deployment of the army for the purpose of effecting arrest of Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav pursuant to the oral order passed by the Hon'ble Judges of the Patna High Court, Bihar has been characterised in the chargesheet as "this direction given by Dr. U.N. Biswas to his subordinate authorities was illegal and reflected lack of knowledge and was an exercise in excess of his authority and he thereby displayed lack of devotion to duty and contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968" and further it was specifically alleged in the statement of imputation that "Dr. U.N. Biswas instructed S/Shri V.S.K. Kaumudi, S.P. AHD. Patna and Bakesh Kumar Standing Counsel to seek help of the army which was not at all warranted and contrary to the law laid down for the use of armed forces in aid to civil authorities and execution of a non-bailable warrant is not a purpose for which army assistance may be called." The allegation was made that this was done without consulting the Director, CBI, New Delhi and the requisitioning the army unauthorisedly "thereby displayed lack of knowledge, insubordination and committed misconduct in violation of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968".

17. It is submitted that there was no occasion on the part of the CBI to arrest Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav in terms of the said non-bailable warrant issued by the court as Laloo Prasad Yadav had surrendered before the court and the court directed that Shrl Laloo Prasad Yadav be kept in custody.

18. Mr. Ghosh submitted that because of the apprehended situation arose out of the large gathering in front of the house of Laloo Prasad Yadav, the CBI had reasonably anticipated that warrant of arrest could not be executed unless adequate number of forces are made available by the Bihar Police Authorities but the Director General of Police, Bihar and all other senior police officers including the District Magistrate who were under the direct and indirect control of Laloo Prasad Yadav bent upon not to render any assistance to CBI for the purpose of executing the non-bailable warrant of arrest against Laloo Prasad Yadav, they had out of necessity faced with a peculiar and unprecedented situation of non-cooperation of the local police authorities, a letter was written to the Army Authority for deployment of army for the purpose of execution of the non-bailable warrant on the basis of an oral order passed by the Patna High Court. The Army Authority refused to deploy army for the purpose and hereinbefore stated that Laloo Prasad Yadav had surrendered. This writing of the letter is now being characterised as unwarranted and contrary to the law laid down for use of armed forces in aid of civil authorities and further letter for requisition of the army was unauthorised and the same displayed lack of knowledge, insubordination and amounted to a mis-conduct in violation of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.