Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 123 (PAT)

Umesh Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-16

J.N.BHATT, S.K.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.5.2006 passed in CWJC No. 9970 of 2004, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed upholding the order of punishment recorded in a departmental inquiry against the appellant-original writ petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-original writ petitioner has raised the following questions: (i) that the departmental proceedings shall stand vitiated as they have been conducted ex parte; and (ii) that the copy of the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the appellant-original writ petitioner. 3. In order to appreciate the merits of the Letters Patent Appeal, let there be skeleton projection of the material and relevant facts which are high lighted hereinbelow: (i) the appellant-original writ petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of the Bihar State Pharmaceuticals & Chemical Development Corporation Limited ("Corporation" for short) and he retired as such. (ii) A communication was received by him dated 1.10.2002, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, intimating about the Governments decision to forfeit the entire gratuity amount of the appellant and withholding of further salary and allowances for suspension period from 18.11.1997 to 31.3.1998, except subsistence allowance already paid to the appellant. (iii) the appellant-original writ petitioner was an employee of the Corporation which was incorporated under the Companies Act. Therefore, the activities of the Corporation, recruitment of staff and employees and their service rules were regulated and controlled as per the Memorandum of Article of Association through the Board of Directors. The State Government has been a share holder in the Corporation, therefore, the liability for the payment is of the Corporation and not that of the State Government. (iv) Against the appellant-original writ petitioner, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Bihar, Patna, has been investigating the charges framed against him who is a retired Managing Director of the Corporation in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 1992. Charge-sheet No. 10 of 1997 dated 31.3.1997 has already been submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, the trial of which has yet not been concluded. 4. Charge-sheet No. 10 of 1997 dated 31.3.1997 has already been submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, the trial of which has yet not been concluded. 4. From the records, it becomes clear and explicit that all the Police papers and other relevant materials and papers were supplied to the petitioner on 2.7.1999 and the said vigilance case, as stated earlier, is pending for disposal. The charge-sheet against the appellant has been brought on record. 5. It is found from the record that under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, vide resolution number 2151 dated 29.3.1997, a departmental inquiry in respect of as many as nine charges came to be initiated. 6. The Inquiring Officer was appointed. He has conducted the inquiry. The appellant had participated in the inquiry. As is disclosed from the record, out of nine charges, five charges came to be proved against the appellant, as a result of which the disciplinary authority accepting the report of the Inquiring Officer passed a final disciplinary order awarding the punishment of withholding of entire gratuity amount and disallowing salary for the suspension period except subsistence allowance, as stated hereinabove. 7. It is stated before us that the Corporation has gone under liquidation and, therefore, the Administrator is discharging executive and managerial functions. 8. The appellant questioned the legality and validity of the departmental proceedings and the resultant imposition of the departmental punishment against him by filing the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia, contending the same grounds, reiterated before us, which have been highlighted above. So far as the question of appellant participating in the departmental proceedings is concerned, it is very clearly pointed out from the record and the affidavit and the reply filed on behalf of the State of Bihar that the original writ petitioner, appellant before us, had participated in all the proceedings. He had never asked for any copy of the inquiry report. Apart from that, it is settled proposition of law that mere non-furnishing of inquiry report ipso facto would not lead to vitiation of the departmental proceedings. In order to succeed in such a situation, it has to be shown to the satisfaction to the Court that prejudice has been caused to the delinquent on account of non-furnishing of the inquiry report. No such material is placed on record. In order to succeed in such a situation, it has to be shown to the satisfaction to the Court that prejudice has been caused to the delinquent on account of non-furnishing of the inquiry report. No such material is placed on record. No such convincing submission is also placed before us. 9. Mere raising of a plea that non-supply of inquiry report has caused prejudice itself is not sufficient. It has to be raised. It has to be convinced. The Court is required to be satisfied that inquiry report ought to have been supplied, as nonsupply thereof has caused material prejudice to the interest of the appellant-original writ petitioner or the delinquent in defending the charges against him. So is not the factual profile of the case on hand Not only that, there is one more thing which comes in the way of the appellant It is not disputed that there is a departmental channel of questioning the verdicl in the domestic inquiry and forum of appeal is provided, but it has not been availed of by the appellant-original writ petitioner. The vigilance case which was initiated against the Managing Director, who is the appellant before us, is pending. 10. In this view of the situation, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. We find no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, as a result of which it has to meet one and the only legal fate of rejection at the outset. 11. Accordingly; this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.