Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 806 (PAT)

J. N. Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-06-28

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the Memo No. 7 dated 8.2.2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby a charge-sheet has been framed and served upon the petitioner in connection with case No. 20 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The charge against the petitioner is that during his tenure as Circle Officer, Ranchi, he has done some illegality in passing order in a mutation proceeding in respect of Gairmazurua Malik land and thereby caused huge loss to the Government. 2. The petitioner earlier moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 3505/99 R challenging the letter issued by the Department directing the Deputy Commissioner to frame charge and send it to the Government along with other documents for the purpose of doing the needful. This Court dismissed the writ application in terms of the order dated 17.2.2000 holding that the writ application was premature. The petitioner preferred L.P.A. against the aforesaid order being LPA No. 74/2000 which was disposed of on 11.5.2000. The operative portion of the order passed in LPA No. 74/ 2000 R is as under: Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that now charges have been framed against the appellant as contained in Annexure 12 to the amendment petition and the appellant now is facing departmental proceeding. It is further submitted that the contents of the letter as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application were themselves manifest to show that proceeding had commenced against the appellant and, therefore, the writ application could not have been dismissed holding it as premature, be, that as it may, now the appellant has a cause of action charges have been framed against him. We find that the writ application was not dismissed on merit. The appellant, if so advised, may challenge the charges framed against him in the departmental proceeding by filing a separate writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. With these directions and observations this appeal is disposed of. 3. Mr. Jerath, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned memo and the charge-sheet as being illegal and wholly jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has drawn my attention to various annexures including affidavits, the orders passed by the Revenue authorities, rent receipts in respect of the lands and other documents to substantiate that the charges levelled against the petitioner is without any basis. Jerath, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned memo and the charge-sheet as being illegal and wholly jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has drawn my attention to various annexures including affidavits, the orders passed by the Revenue authorities, rent receipts in respect of the lands and other documents to substantiate that the charges levelled against the petitioner is without any basis. In my opinion, the question whether the charages levelled against the petitioner is mala fide and without any basis, depends upon the facts and evidence brought on record. At this stage, this Court exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot usurb the power of the Inquiry Officer and adjudicate the matter. 4. Recently in the case of Air India Ltd. V/s. M. Yogeshwar Raj (2000) A.I.R. S.C.W. 1666, a similar question fell for consideration by the apex Court. In that case a show-cause notice was challenged by the writ petitioner wherein it was alleged that a false caste certificate was issued by him. In that case, even before issuing second show-cause notice, a first show-cause notice was issued and the Inquiry Committee, after recording evidence of the witnesses, submitted report on the basis of which a second show-cause notice was issued. The apex Court held that the writ application was premature inasmuch as the Disciplinary authority was yet to make up his mind as to the guilt of the respondent. It was further held that the High Court should not have pre-empted the factual decision of the Disciplinary authority on the issues. It was observed: It appears from a copy of the writ petition that the respondent has not questioned the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary authority to issue the impugned show-cause notice. The two issues of the respondents caste and whether he had adequately explained the production of the bogus certificate of 4.10.98 are yet to be decided by the Disciplinary authority. Both the issues are primarily issues of fact. The High Court should not have pre-empted a factual decision of the Disciplinary authority on the issues. Nor should the High Court have stayed the proceeding on a prima facie finding on the subject-matter of inquiry particularly when the competence of the Disciplinary authority was not in doubt. 5. In the instant case, as noticed above, the charges levelled against the petitioner have to be gone into by the Inquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding. Nor should the High Court have stayed the proceeding on a prima facie finding on the subject-matter of inquiry particularly when the competence of the Disciplinary authority was not in doubt. 5. In the instant case, as noticed above, the charges levelled against the petitioner have to be gone into by the Inquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding. This Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot usurb the power of the Disciplinary authority at the preliminary stage of the proceeding. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, I do not. find any reason to interfere with the impugned charge-sheet served upon the petitioner at this stage. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.