Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 552 (PAT)

Chhote Lal Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2003-05-08

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2.6.2000 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the punishment of reduction in the time scale by one stage as also the punishment of censure. While imposing the aforesaid punishment, it has been further stated that for the period of suspension, petitioner shall not be entitled for any amount other than subsistence allowance already paid to him but the period of suspension shall be counted for the purpose of post retiral benefits. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure-15) whereby the appeal preferred against the order of dismissal, has been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for decision are that by order dated 21.5.1996, petitioner was put under suspension and by the order of the same day, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Petitioner was served with the memo of charge whereby allegation was levelled for facilitating interpolation in the service book of the employees. Petitioner was given opportunity in the departmental inquiry to establish his innocence. The Inquiry officer submitted his report dated 28.2.1998 (Annexure-10) and ultimately concluded that from the materials placed in the inquiry report, the petitioner comes within the net of suspect. In the inquiry report, it has been observed as follows : (LOCAL LANGUAGE) 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the second show cause notice dated 15.5.1998 asking him to show cause as to why the punishment be not imposed on him. Petitioner filed his reply and by the impugned order dated 2.6.2000, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and by communication dated 27.5.2000 (Annexure-14), petitioner was informed that his appeal has been rejected. 4. Mr. Shivaji Pandey, appearing on behalf of the petitioner raises a very short point. He submits that the Inquiry Officer has not conclusively recorded a finding of guilt and the petitioner has been visited with the penalty on the basis of the said Inquiry Report. 5. Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent Board submits that from a reading of the Inquiry report it would be evident that the Inquiry Officer, in fact, has held the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. 5. Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent Board submits that from a reading of the Inquiry report it would be evident that the Inquiry Officer, in fact, has held the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. The report of the Inquiry Officer may not be happily worded but from its perusal it would be evident that the petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct, learned counsel points out. 6. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Shri Pandey. The ultimate finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer has been quoted above and the same only indicates suspicion against the petitioner. It is well settled that in the departmental proceeding, charge is not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and finding of guilt can be recorded on preponderence but before a delinquent employee is punished, finding of guilt has to be recorded. In the present case, the finding of guilt has not been conclusively recorded but the disciplinary authority had proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner has been held guilty by the Inquiry Officer and this itself vitiates the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority. 7. In case, the disciplinary authority believes that the material placed before the Inquiry officer shows misconduct alleged against the petitioner, nothing shall prevent him to give tentative reasons for disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and on consideration of the reply of the petitioner proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are set aside with the liberty aforesaid. No costs.