Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 902 (PAT)

Braj Kishore Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-07-20

R.M.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of his dismissal from service dated 30.10.1998 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 29.9.1999, contained in Annexures 6 and 7 respectively. 2. In short, the relevant facts of the as Shift Guard on 27.4.1978 in the service of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). It is claimed that there was no complaint against him in whole of his service career except that for the first time, a criminal case was instituted against him for recovery of illegal arms and ammunition and the properties snatched in a case of dacoity from a house where he and one Surendra Singh were present. The petitioner was acquitted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, vide order/judgment dated 29.2.1996 (An-nexure 1) passed in Sessions Trial No. 57/87 corresponding to Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 105/85. However, on account of arrest of the petitioner in the said case, he was placed under suspension, vide Office Order No. 57 dated 14.3.1985. Later the order of suspension was revoked without prejudice to the departmental proceeding to be initiated against him. 3. After acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, vide Office Order No. 337 dated 30th September, 1997. Shri Ram-jeevan Mehta, Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Muzaffarpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the proceeding witnesses were examined and cross-examined and on completion of said proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted . his enquiry report (Annexure 3) holding therein the charge not proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority differed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer and, accordingly, issued second show cause notice, vide Office Order No. 2652 dated 23.6.1993, as to why he be not discharged from service assigning therein the reasons for difference with the finding of the enquiry of- ficer The ptitioner submitted his second show cause and the Board claimed that on consideration the same was found unsatisfactory and consequently, the disciplinary authority decided to discharge the petitioner from service and that he shall not be entitled to salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. However, the period of suspension was treated to be on duty. However, the period of suspension was treated to be on duty. The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Chairman of the Board who, by the impugned order (An-nexure 7), rejected his appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case as also the departmental proceeding were based on identical set of facts, namely, the raid conducted at the official quarter no. EF/13 and the presence of this petitioner with Surendra Singh in the said quarter at the time of raid and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom. On that basis the petitioner was also charged with that he fully knew.the culprits and that he had also contacts with them. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry were also examined in the criminal case besides several other witnesses, but the Court on consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused persons. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the petitioner was acquitted. In this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner lias submitted that once the petitioner has been acquitted by the judicial pronouncement, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the findings of even of the enquiry officer to stand. It is submitted that in the case of M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , the Apex Court under similar circumstances held that since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to such cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is fit to be quashed also on the ground that the petitioner was denied of the opportunity of making representation before differing with the findings i and that he was simply given second show cause notice after recording finding differing with the finding of the enquiry officer only against the proposed punishment, which is contrary to the principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank V/s. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 . 5. This Court finds substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Punjab National Bank V/s. Kunj Behari Misra (supra) the Apex Court held that whenever the disciplinary authority disagree with the enquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. It was also held that the principles of natural justice require the authority which has to take final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer. 6. It is not the case of the respondents that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer ever gave such opportunity to the petitioner except that after recording finding the petitioner was given second show cause notice only against the proposed punishment. Learned counsel for the respondents has also failed to show that the petitioner was ever given any such opportunity as per the aforementioned principle decided by the Apex Court. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated on this ground alone. 7. For the reasons stated above and the principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (supra) also, the impugned orders cannot survive and the same, are accordingly, quashed. 8. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated on this ground alone. 7. For the reasons stated above and the principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (supra) also, the impugned orders cannot survive and the same, are accordingly, quashed. 8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is undergoing this agony since 1985 dispite having been acquitted by the criminal court in February, 1996, this Court does not consider it expedient to direct any fresh departmental enquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The petitioner shall be reinstated and shall also be paid entire arrears of salary together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement within three months. 9. In the result, the writ application is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.