Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 272 (PAT)

Umesh Chandra Dwivedi v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-09

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 1, whereby and whereunder a decision was taken by the disciplinary authority for compulsory retirement of the petitioner by way of punishment. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 4 dated 9th November, 1999 joined at Darbhanga on his transfer from Aurangabad on the post of Supply Inspector. While the petitioner was working on the post of Supply Inspector at Darbhanga, he was directed to discharge his duties as Supply Inspector for Kiratpur and Ghanshyampur Blocks and in the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide order, as contained in annexure 9 dated 21st June, 2002 for the charges that the petitioner performed his duties at Kiratpur and Ghanshyampur Blocks by remaining at Darbhanga and further on the charge that he absented from duty from 17.1.2001 to 24.1.2004. Articles of charges thereafter were served upon the petitioner, which he replied stating therein that since he was not relieved finally from Darbhanga nor he was transferred from Darbhanga to other Blocks, as referred to above, and he discharged his duties in two Blocks or was deputed in addition to work at Darbhanga and further he absented for few days on account of death of his father. 4. The matter thereafter was enquired into and without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence by way of defence in the departmental proceeding, the order impugned was passed. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the departmental proceeding, it would be manifest that the petitioner was never finally relieved from the post of Supply Inspector from Darbhanga and he remained incharge of Kiratpur and Ghanshyampur Blocks as well. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no charge against the petitioner to the effect that he did not discharge his duties at Blocks level where he was deputed. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the inquiry officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and on the basis of the inquiry report punishment of compulsory retirement was passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the inquiry officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and on the basis of the inquiry report punishment of compulsory retirement was passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. From annexures 6 and 7 to the writ application, it would appear that the petitioner and others, keeping in view the load of work, were made incharge of several blocks in addition to their postings at the headquarters. 8. From the orders impugned, as contained in annexures 6 and 7, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner was transferred from Darbhanga and was made incharge of Kiratpur and Ghanshyampur Blocks, rather the facts remained that in addition to his work at Darbhanga, the petitioner was also directed to supervise the work at Kiratpur and Ghanshyampur Blocks. In absence of such an order, in my opinion, the petitioner could not have been held guilty for not discharging his duties at the two Blocks level, rather it appears from the material on record that the petitioner performed his duties in two blocks in addition to his work at Darbhanga and since he was not finally relieved or transferred from Darbhanga there was no occasion for him, to discharge his duties from those block levels. 9. Besides all these questions, it appears that the authorities while passing the order of punishment, which is compulsory retirement from service, did not follow the procedures laid down in law, inasmuch as sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to put forth his defence before the inquiry officer. In paragraph 41 of the writ application, it is specifically stated that no witness was examined, no document was exhibited, nor opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Paragraph 41 of the writ application has not been answered by the respondents in the counter affidavit. In a case, where the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, full opportunity could have been given to him to put forth his defence. 10. Since Paragraph 41 of the writ application has not been answered in the counter affidavit, it should be presumed that there was no fair play in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner nor his explanation filed before the authorities was properly scrutinised. 11. 10. Since Paragraph 41 of the writ application has not been answered in the counter affidavit, it should be presumed that there was no fair play in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner nor his explanation filed before the authorities was properly scrutinised. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, order impugned, as contained in annexure 1, appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction. 12. In the result, this application is allowed and order impugned, as contained in annexure 1, is set aside, However, the authorities, if so advised, may be at liberty to proceed in the case in accordance with law. 13. It goes without saying that the petitioner now would be entitled for his legal dues in accordance with law.