Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1179 (PAT)

Sahdeo Singh v. State of Bihar

2004-11-27

body2004
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Junior Counsel appearing for the State. 2. This writ application is directed against the orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished in a departmental proceeding and his statutory appeal filed against the order of punishment has been dismissed. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially in the departmental proceeding, enquiry was entrusted to Sri K.K. Sinha, Executive Magistrate, Jehanabad to enquire into the matter and the enquiry officer submitted its report to the District Magistrate, Jehanabad saying that charges were not found proved but the District Magistrate again entrusted enquiry to Sri Nand Jee Singh, Assistant District Supply Officer, Jehanabad to enquire into the matter. Thereafter the matter was enquired into and statements of witnesses were recorded but no opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear in the proceeding. 4. In other words, learned counsel submits that no opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioner at the stage of enquiry conducted by Sri Nand Jee Singh and, therefore, the action of the authorities must be held to be violative of principles of natural justice. 5. In paragraph 20 of the writ application, it is categorically stated that Sri Nand Jee Singh made enquiry into the matter and recorded the statements of he witnesses but the petitioner was not given any information of such enquiry to be made by him and statements of the witnesses were recorded behind his back. The statement made in paragraph 20 of the writ application has been answered in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit where this fact is not being denied. It further appears that on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by Sri Nand Jee Singh, the petitioner was found guilty by the disciplinary authority and he was punished vide order as contained in Annexure-1. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the contrary, submitted that the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with law and the disciplinary authority ultimately finding the petitioner guilty passed the order of punishment which has also been upheld by the appeallate authority. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the contrary, submitted that the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with law and the disciplinary authority ultimately finding the petitioner guilty passed the order of punishment which has also been upheld by the appeallate authority. 7. Since the enquiry was entrusted afresh to another enquiry officer and the witnesses were examined, it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to give an opportunity to the petitioner of rebuttal. 8. From the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner of rebuttal at the stage of subsequent enquiry and thus, the action of the authorities must be held to be violative of principles of natural justice. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 are not sustainable in law. 10. In the result, this application is allowed. The orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law.