Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 235 (PAT)

Ram Keshwar Ram v. State Of Bihar

2003-02-26

SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing Annexure-1, the Notification, issued by the State Government, Road Construction Department dated 27.9.2002, whereby and whereunder punishment has been awarded to the petitioner, after conclusion of the departmental proceeding. 3. The short facts of the present case is that the petitioner while he was posted at Dehri-on-sone as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department was called for to explain with regard to certain charges relating to non supply/non submission of statement of facts for preparation of counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 10585 of 1995 relating to the period when he was incharge Superintending Engineer in the Rural Engineering organization of the Rural Development Department. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.12.1999. However as the aforesaid explanation was not found satisfactory, the petitioner was put under suspension on 18.10.2000 and his headquarter fixed in the office of the Engi-neer-in-chief-cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. Subsequently charges were served on him for which the petitioner had also filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 914 of 2001. The petitioner has participated in the departmental proceeding for which Enquiry Officer was appointed though it is contended by the learned counsel that the Enquiry Officer in his report exonerated the petitioner of the charges. However subsequently the Disciplinary Authority though differing with the enquiry report in view of the fact that the petitioner was to superannuate in near future decided to convert the proceeding to a proceeding under Rule 55A of Civil Services Classification and Appeal Rules, 1991 (sic1930?) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), passed the impugned order inflicting minor punishment upon him. 4. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same on two counts; firstly once the Enquiring officers in his report exonerated him and if the Disciplinary Authority had decided to differ with the same he should have assigned the reasons for the same and provided him (the petitioner) an opportunity to show cause and only after considering the same any order could have been passed and secondly it has been argued that even if a minor punishment has been awarded as to whether in view of one of the punishment being withholding anything except subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension, whether in view of Rule 97 of the aforesaid Rules show cause was required to be given to the petitioner or not and if the same was a necessary requirement, the whole order impugned stood vitiated. 5. This Court after going into the rival submission, is of the view that in the facts of the case, once if a departmental proceeding has been initiated under Rule 55 of the aforesaid Rules and if an enquiry officer after the proceeding exonerated the petitioner, and if the Disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the same he was required to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner assigning the reason why he proposed to differ with the same. Though it is well settled principle that the report of the Enquiry Officer is not required to be accepted as a right, the Disciplinary Authority for the reasons assigned by himself can differ with the same, but in the present case as in view of the exoneration if anything subsequent thereto which was in any way prejudicial to the petitioner was required to be passed or done, it can only be done after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which admittedly has not been done and as such the impugned order is violative of the principles enunciated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such it must go. 6. In the result this writ application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. However, in the facts of the case though the petitioner has already superannuated from service but if the authorities so feel they may proceed afresh in accordance with law under the provisions which are available to them. 6. In the result this writ application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. However, in the facts of the case though the petitioner has already superannuated from service but if the authorities so feel they may proceed afresh in accordance with law under the provisions which are available to them. It goes without saying that as the order has been quashed, the consequential benefits if any, are to be paid to the petitioner.