Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 566 (PAT)

Rajendra Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2003-05-12

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 25.7.2001 whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of reduction of 10% of pension under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that while the petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Bihar State Electricity Board, he was put under suspension and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. Lateron, the order of suspension was revoked but the departmental proceeding continued. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, petitioner retired but the proceeding continued. The Enquiry Officer exonerated him of all the charges. When the report of the Enquiry Officer was placed for consideration before the disciplinary authority, it disagreed with the same and while doing so, assigned various reasons and ultimately gave notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why 10% of the pension be not withheld in exercise of the power under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Petitioner submitted his reply and on consideration of the same, by the impugned order dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure-7), the punishment of withholding of 10% of pension has been passed. It is common ground that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner from, the charges and the disciplinary authority while issuing notice against the proposed punishment, assigned reasons for disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer but has given opportunity to the petitioner to show cause only against the punishment and on consideration thereof, the impugned order has been passed. 3. Mr. Azfar Hasan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made various submissions to assail the impugned order but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I do not consider it expedient either to incorporate or answer the same. He submits that the disciplinary authority having not given opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy him that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper, itself vitiates the impugned order. He submits that the disciplinary authority having not given opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy him that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper, itself vitiates the impugned order. He points out that mere giving notice against the proposed punishment without giving opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy that the finding of exoneration is just and proper, does not meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. 4. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of the judgment of this court dated 28.4.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2322 of 2003 (Jagdish Lall V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board & ors.), it is difficult for him to persuade this court to take a contrary view. In the case of Jagdish Lall (supra), on review of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court; it has been heid as follows: "Undisputedly, petitioner was not given an opportunity to satisfy the disciplinary authority that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper but has been given show cause notice against the proposed punishment only, which renders his order illegal in the eye of law." 5. In the present case, undisputedly, the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy to the disciplinary authority that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper and on this ground alone, the order impugned cannot be allowed to stand. Respondents, if so advised, may proceed against the petitioner from a stage subsequently to the filing of the Inquiry Report, in accordance with law. In case, the respondents decide to proceed, they must conclude the departmental proceeding in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. Needless to state that in case, the ultimate order goes adverse to the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to assail the same in accordance with law. 7. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure-7) is quashed with the liberty aforesaid. No costs.