Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 447 (PAT)

Sugandh Upadhaya v. B. S. E. B.

2002-04-05

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, counsel appearing in support of this writ petition and Mr. S.D. Yadav, counsel appearing for the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 2. The petitioner was a Class-IV employee in the Examination Board. He was dismissed from service in a disciplinary action on certain charges against him. Challenging the order of dismissal, passed by the Disciplinary authority the petitioner earlier came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8367 of 2001 and on the basis of the order, passed in that case he filed an appeal, as provided under the Service resolutions, before the Administrator of the Examination Board. The Administrator affirmed the order of dismissal and rejected the petitioners appeal by order dated 7.6.2001. This writ petition has now been filed, challenging the orders of the petitioners dismissal from the service. 3. The petitioner worked as a peon. It appears that he was in the habit of coming to the office in an intoxicated state and causing disturbances by quarreling with others and abusing them. He was put under suspension on the charge of coming for duty in the state of intoxication. He then submitted an application undertaking in writing not to come to the office in a drunken state in future (annexure-C to the counter affidavit) and on the basis of that undertaking, he was released from suspension, though the charges were not dropped against him. Less than three weeks thereafter the petitioner was again charged with accepting a bribe of Rs. 200/- from a student, namely, Babloo Paswan for the issuance of a duplicate Admit Card to him. In connection with this charge, it is significant to note that the application of Babloo Paswan was recovered from the person of the petitioner. On the two charges, the petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry in which the charges were duly established against him. The petitioner was given the second show-cause notice to which he did not reply on the plea that he was engaged in some marriage. The Secretary of the Board thereafter gave him the punishment of dismissal from service by order dated 12.5.2001 which was confirmed by the Administrator in appeal. 4. Mr. Mishra assailed the disciplinary proceedings and the orders of dismissal passed therein on several grounds. The Secretary of the Board thereafter gave him the punishment of dismissal from service by order dated 12.5.2001 which was confirmed by the Administrator in appeal. 4. Mr. Mishra assailed the disciplinary proceedings and the orders of dismissal passed therein on several grounds. Learned counsel submitted that the order of dismissal passed by the original authority, namely, the Secretary was in contravention of Regulation 52(C) of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964 . Regulation 52(C) requires the competent authority to pass the order independently and on his own without seeking any direction of the superior authority, including the Appellate Authority. 5. According to Mr. Mishra the Secretary did not do so and he passed the order on the basis of the decision taken by the Administrator. I am unable to see eye to eye with Mr. Mishra. On reading the order as a whole it becomes evident that the Secretary took into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and came to his own independent judgment regarding the guilt of the petitioner and the punishment to be awarded to him. A reference towards the end of the order to the decision taken by the Administrator is simply a surplusage and it cannot be said to cause a breach of the provision of Regulation 52(C). Mr. Mishra then submitted that no copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner and the omission to supply a copy of the enquiry report had vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. I am unable to the accept this submission either. No prejudice is shown to have caused to the petitioner due to the non-supply of the enquiry report. Moreover, as noted above the petitioner did not even care to give any reply to the second show-cause notice given to him and took the plea that he was engaged in some marriage. In these circumstances, I am unable to see what prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner due to the non-supply of the enquiry report. 6. Mr. Mishra next submitted that from the order of the Secretary, it appeared that the Administrator had taken a decision that the case of the petitioner was fit for his dismissal and, therefore, the petitioner could not hope to get any justice or a fair consideration of his case, at the appellate stage, before the same authority. 7. 6. Mr. Mishra next submitted that from the order of the Secretary, it appeared that the Administrator had taken a decision that the case of the petitioner was fit for his dismissal and, therefore, the petitioner could not hope to get any justice or a fair consideration of his case, at the appellate stage, before the same authority. 7. In the facts of the case, this submission also cannot be entertained. As noted above, this matter had earlier came to this Court and at that stage it was submitted that though the order, passed by the disciplinary authority was appealable, the appellate authority was not accepting the memo of appeal. Thereupon, this Court gave a direction to the Administrator to consider the petitioners appeal and to dispose it of after hearing the parties on merits. The Administrator was thus hearing the appeal on the direction given by this Court and now at this stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that his appeal did not receive a fair consideration. 8. Mr. Mishra also raised some objections on the ground of malice and bias and further submitted that there was no sufficient evidence before the enquiry efficient to justify the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner. In support of his submission, he relied on a decision in the case of Kuldeep Singh V/s. The Commissioner of Police and others, AIR 1996 677 (sic AIR 1999 SC 677 ). I do not see any application of that decision in the facts of this case and I am further unable to accept the plea that the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner is based on no evidence. 9. On hearing counsel for the parties I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed.