Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 925 (PAT)

Jai Prakash Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2000-07-27

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The petitioner was suspended, vide Memo No. 107 dated 1st June, 1995 in pursuance of a criminal case and was taken in custody on 31st May, 1995. The said order of suspension continued for a long period. 4. In the criminal case, no cognizance having been taken, the petitioner requested the authorities to revoke the order of suspension. However, no order revoking the order of suspension passed, on the other hand, a departmental proceeding was initiated, vide Order No. 349 dated 20th May, 1998. 5. It appears that the matter was referred to Inquiry Officer who submitted report, vide letter No. 72 dated 15th July, 1998, on which the petitioner was provided with a 2nd show-cause notice, vide Memo No. 589 dated 8.8.98. 6. As in the departmental proceeding, the allegation relating to same charge, which was the subject-matter of criminal proceeding, the petitioner refused to take part in the departmental proceeding. He also did not choose to give specific 2nd show-cause reply and prayed for some time on the ground of floods and Bihar Bund. The authorities awaited reply up to 3rd September, 1998, whereinafter, vide Memo No. 926 dated 4th September, 1998 dismissed the petitioner from service. 7. From the last portion of the impugned order, it will be evident that the authorities did not hold the charge proved, on the other hand, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not given the 2nd show-cause reply, on the basis of records, he holds the charge to be prima facie proved and on that ground dismissed the petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid background, as petitioner has not been dismissed from service for proved charges, but on the ground that the charges are, prima facie, proved, I feel that the matter should be remitted to the authorities for further inquiry and fresh decision. 9. Accordingly, I set aside the order of dismissal dated 4th September, 1998 and remit the matter to the Director of Consolidation for further inquiry. 10. The petitioner is given liberty to take part in the further inquiry, if he so chooses. 9. Accordingly, I set aside the order of dismissal dated 4th September, 1998 and remit the matter to the Director of Consolidation for further inquiry. 10. The petitioner is given liberty to take part in the further inquiry, if he so chooses. On failure, it will be open to the Inquiry Officer/competent authority to proceed, ex parte, and pass final order. 11. A decision in the departmental proceeding be taken within four months and copy of the inquiry report be served on the petitioner given him opportunity for another month. The competent authority will thereafter taking into consideration the inquiry report, reply. If any, preferred by petitioner, will pass final order in the departmental proceeding, preferably within two months thereof. 12. So far as arrears of salary of the intervening period is concerned, the question is to be determined in terms with Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, after final decision as may be taken in the departmental proceeding. 13. In the meantime, the petitioner will receive subsistence allowance as he was getting prior to the issuance of the order of dismissal. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.