Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1256 (PAT)

R. K. Sharma v. Union Of India

2000-11-23

AFTAB ALAM, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of this writ petition, which is filed against the judgment and order dated 5.7.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Branch, Patna dismissing O.A.No. 247 of 1995 filed at the instance of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was a member of the mob, which on 17.2.1987 forcibly entered into the premises of Postmaster Generals office, Patna and shouted inflammatory and derogatory slogans against the Postmaster General and the Additional Postmaster General. The unruly protestors then broke open the door of the office-room of the Additional Postmaster General where Mr. K. A. Raghavan, the Postmaster General and Mr. K. A. Abroi, the Additional Postmaster General had taken shelter. Some members of the mob, including the writ petitioner brutally assaulted the aforesaid two officers. 3. The occurrence gave rise to a criminal case in which the petitioner and a number of others were made accused. The criminal case ended in acquittal. 4. However, apart from the criminal case the petitioner and a few others were also subjected to separate disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was given a chargesheet dated 26.3.1987 (Annexure-1) enumerating the different articles of charges levelled against him. In the departmental enquiry the charges were duly established and on the basis of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 9.5.1989 dismissing the petitioner from service. A copy of the dismissal order alongwith a copy of the enquiry report was duly served upon the petitioner. 5. The petitioner then preferred an appeal as provided under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal by order, dated 27.9.1993 whereby the punishment of dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement. 6. The writ petitioner availed of the statutory revision, which was rejected without any modification in the punishment. 7. He then sought to challenge the orders of punishment passed against him before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. no. 247 of 1985. The tribunal on a detailed consideration of the matter found no merit in his application and rejected it by the order coming under challenge in this writ petition. 8. 7. He then sought to challenge the orders of punishment passed against him before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. no. 247 of 1985. The tribunal on a detailed consideration of the matter found no merit in his application and rejected it by the order coming under challenge in this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from submitting some other points, laid considerable stress on the fact that a copy of the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner before the order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner were vitiated for that reason alone and the orders of punishment passed against him by the disciplinary authority and later by the appellate authority were fit to be struck down on that ground. 9. We are unable to accept the submission. It is undeniable that a copy of the enquiry report was duly received by the petitioner alongwith the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and the enquiry report was in his possession before the memorandum of appeal was prepared for submission before the appellate authority. After having got a copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner has filed an appeal, a revision, an application before the tribunal and finally this writ petition before this Court and in none of these petitions it is shown that any prejudice was caused to him. 10. In Union Bank of India V/s. Vishwa Mohan, AIR 1998 S.C.2311, it was observed as follows; "The finding in this behalf is unsus-. tainable. As stated earlier, the appellant had in possession the enquiry report/findings when he filed the statutory appeal as well as the writ petition in the High Court. The High Court was required to apply its judicial mind to all the circumstances and then form its opinion whether non furnishing of the report would have made any difference to the result in the case and thereupon pass-an appropriate order. In paragraph 13, this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, (1994 AIR SCW 1050) (Supra) has very rightly cautioned "The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettabfy being done at present. In paragraph 13, this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, (1994 AIR SCW 1050) (Supra) has very rightly cautioned "The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettabfy being done at present. The Court should avoid resorting to shftrt cuts." In our considered view, the High Court has failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case and erroneously concluded that non-supply of the inquiry report/findings has caused prejudice to the respondent." 11 In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied that the supply of the enquiry report after the order was passed by the authority of the first instance cannot be mechanically held to be fatal to the disciplinary proceedings. 12. We are also satisfied that the other points raised in support of the writ petition by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh have no merit or substance and we are unable to find any infirmity in the order passed by the tribunal. 13. Incidentally, another case arising from the same episode being C.W.J.C. No. 7044 of 2000; [reported in 2000(4) PLJR 435 ] Mostt. Rajbansi Devi V/s. Union of India & ors. was dismissed by this Bench by order, dated 18.8.2000. We find much similarity in these two cases and hence, this case too merits the same order of dismissal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.