Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 These cases are illustrative of the fact how persons Patna High Court LPA No.797 of 2014 dt.22-01-2016 are harassed even though they are not at fault and on grounds of pure hyper technicalities.

4 An advertisement was issued for recruitment of General Duty Constables in the Central Reserve Police Force (for brevity, CRPF). The writ petitioners, who are respondents in these appeals, had applied. There was a written test. They all qualified. This was followed by physical fitness test. They all qualified. Interviews were taken and all the writ petitioners were found qualified but were put on the waiting list. There being substantial vacancies, appointments were then made from the waiting list as well. Accordingly, appointment letters were issued to all the writ petitioners in the year, 2003 and they all joined. On or about 28.03.2004, they were all asked to go home. They challenged this before this Court in various writ applications. CRPF took a stand that Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity, CBI) was conducting enquiry into the examination process in respect of candidates selected for being posted in Bihar. The fact remains that CBI ultimately found that the candidates had committed no wrong nor were they parties to any malpractice. The only thing they could point was that the examiners had committed certain mistakes. Even those mistakes were not limited to one or other candidates but were mistakes across the selection process inasmuch as where the answer to an objective type Patna High Court LPA No.797 of 2014 dt.22-01-2016 question had been corrected by overwriting, instead of marking the answer wrong for overwriting, the answer being correct, one mark was allotted. At the cost of repetition, this was done by the examiners not in case of any or group or a few of the examinees but it was for all examinees wherever such a situation arose. In other words, the examiners awarded the right answers with full marking notwithstanding there being overwriting therein on the basis that they were objective type questions and answers. According to CBI, this was a wrong procedure followed by the examiners. Thus obviously, the writ petitioners had nothing to do with it and they were not to be blamed for this nor is there any evidence to suggest to that. What then happened is that CRPF constituted a Board to enquire as to who were the beneficiaries of the mistake committed by the writ petitioners and who were the beneficiaries of the mistake committed by the examiners and it is because of that that they, having already been appointed, were sent home. When the said writ petition was taken for final hearing, this Court held that the writ petitioners had committed no mistake. The writ petitioners were not at fault and, as such, their appointments could not be terminated. They were all ordered to be reinstated forthwith with back wages. Accordingly, the writ petitioners were taken back in service in the year, 2005. Against these judgments by the Single Judge then delivered, pursuant to which they Patna High Court LPA No.797 of 2014 dt.22-01-2016 rejoined, CRPF took the matter in intra-Court appeal and the Letters Patent Appeals were summarily dismissed. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of disengagement and directing the reinstatement, became final and binding inter-party. Taking a queue from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that once a person has been appointed substantively, he could only be terminated in accordance with the disciplinary proceedings, now a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioners for gross misconduct. In those disciplinary proceedings, again there was no evidence against the petitioners except that they were innocent beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the CRPF examiners and upon that finding, they were all once again dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct. They filed appeal, revision and being unsuccessful, filed the present set of writ petitions. The learned Single Judge held and rightly so, in our view, that misconduct is a conscious act by an employee directing punishment through disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge, in our view, rightly held that upon the entire finding of the CRPF, there was no misconduct on part of the writ petitioners and there being no misconduct on their part, the disciplinary proceeding itself was wholly misconceived and consequently, the order of dismissal was wholly without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were, thus, allowed with a direction for Patna High Court LPA No.797 of 2014 dt.22-01-2016 reinstatement. Much belatedly, these appeals were filed by the CRPF and after condoning delay of over two years, the appeals are now being heard on merit. The parties have appeared.

6 We have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellants and learned Senior Counsels for the contesting respondents. The first thing, we would like to notice, is what was the mistake. The mistake was that the examiner had awarded one mark for the correct answer though there was overwriting and for overwriting, they ought to have penalized the Patna High Court LPA No.797 of 2014 dt.22-01-2016 candidate notwithstanding the correct answer. To us, it seems that if marks were awarded arbitrarily to some and for the same mistake, some others were deprived of the marks, something could be said. But, the CBI and the Department itself found that this mistake was across the board as if the examiner was not aware that if there was overwriting in the objective type question and answer, the answer had to be rejected. Other mistake was, the examiner rounded off the marks in the sense .05 and above was rounded off to 1 applying the rule of half and above. Again, this was done across the board. Are these mistakes such as to deprive the writ petitioners of their livelihood for they were not authors of the mistake or in any manner associated with the mistake? Had the mistake been taken note of before the results were published or soon thereafter but before appointment letters were issued and appointments made, then probably Courts would not have interfered but having allowed the writ petitioners to join, and then, to go back to the mistakes committed by the examiner and cancel their appointment, cannot be accepted by the Court. Moreover, this pertains to the first round of litigation as between the writ petitioners and CRPF which the CRPF lost and that order became binding inter-party. We cannot sit in appeal over that order because that order stood affirmed by the Division Bench by dismissal of the appeal of CRPF against which Patna High Court LPA No.797 of 2014 dt.22-01-2016 they did not proceed further. Once that was done, the chapter stood closed. CRPF then started disciplinary proceedings for misconduct and, finding misconduct, dismissed the petitioners which led to the second round of litigation from which these appeals arise. The learned Single Judge has clearly held, and we agree, that when disciplinary rules talks of misconduct, misconduct being delinquency, it is not a misconduct of any third party for which the officer could be punished. It is not a case of transferred malice nor a case of something akin to vicarious liability. Misconduct is a personal conduct which is punishable. There is no misconduct at all on part of the writ petitioners and, therefore, the proceedings itself were wholly without jurisdiction. That being so, the order of dismissal was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge and we affirm.