Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1246 (PAT)

Kumar Ajit Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-31

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioner is a member of Bihar Administrative Service. He has filed this application for quashing entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and also for a direction to the respondents to allow him all consequential benefits including promotion with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner have been promoted. 2. The petitioner was posted as Executive Magistrate at Pakur and at that time he was asked to hold Additional Charge of Treasury Officer, Pakur. Subsequently he was transferred as Director Accounts Administration and self-employment of D.R.D.A. at Gopalganj. After his joining at Gopalganj by order dated 29.9.2000 he was put under suspension contemplating departmental proceeding. The allegation against the petitioner was that he violated Rule 130 of the Bihar Financial Rules and did not act with common prudence in the matter of processing the bills amounting to Rs. 3,24,964/- submitted by Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Pakur. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of recommendation made by the Central Bureau of Investigation, while investigating the fodder scam cases. Subsequently C.B.I, did not submit chargesheet against the petitioner so far criminal offence are concerned, but mentioned that the petitioner is liable for departmental action. 3. Petitioners case is that the matter was examined at the government level and the Chief Secretary, Bihar expressed his opinion that three officials were given charge of Treasury Office namely Pramod Kumar Sharma, Parsuram Roy and Ajit Kumar Singh the petitioner in addition to their normal duty. They might have committed some mistake, therefore, a departmental proceeding may be initiated against them. The other two officers against whom also departmental proceeding was initiated for similar charge have already been exonerated of all the charges but so far petitioner is concerned a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is still continuing. Alongwith the memo of charge served to the petitioner no list of witnesses, list of documents and other necessary materials on the basis of which charge were framed were supplied to the petitioner. For this reason on 1.11.2000 petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry, Bihar, Patna which was duly acknowledged by him. Alongwith the memo of charge served to the petitioner no list of witnesses, list of documents and other necessary materials on the basis of which charge were framed were supplied to the petitioner. For this reason on 1.11.2000 petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry, Bihar, Patna which was duly acknowledged by him. The Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry observed that since the charge-sheet do not contain any list of evidence nor the department has appointed the presenting officer, departmental proceeding cannot proceed unless these defects are removed. Inspite of the letter of Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry and reminder by him these defects were not removed as such by order dated 7.12.2000 the Commissioner of the Departmental Enquiry returned all papers relating to the departmental proceeding to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms stating that there is no departmental proceeding pending and it is dropped. Petitioners case is that in view of the order dated 7.12.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Departmental enquiry proceeding no departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner in the light of the Government resolution dated 3.10.2000. Petitioners thereafter for revocation of his suspension filed C.W.J.C. No. 6373 of 2001. Writ application was disposed of with some observation. The order of suspension was not interfered with but petitioner was directed to file his written statement by 21.8.2001 and in case proceeding is not concluded for no fault of the petitioner by 31.10.2001, the order of suspension was directed to be vacated with effect from 1.11.2001. 4. Petitioners case is that he submitted his written statement on 21.8.2001 but it was returned to the petitioner by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner stating that no departmental proceeding is pending and the written statement is no more required. Suspension of the petitioner was revoked by the department. Petitioner is aggrieved as again by letter dated 2.6.2005 he has been asked to submit his show cause, though he had already submitted his written statement before the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner on 21.8.2001 with a copy of it to the department. Petitioners case is that he is not required to file any fresh written statement, in the given facts and circumstances of case, plea has been taken by the petitioner that a departmental proceeding initiated in the year 2000 should not continue for unlimited period and must be quashed specially when there exists no reasonable ground for continuation of such proceeding. Petitioners case is that he is not required to file any fresh written statement, in the given facts and circumstances of case, plea has been taken by the petitioner that a departmental proceeding initiated in the year 2000 should not continue for unlimited period and must be quashed specially when there exists no reasonable ground for continuation of such proceeding. Further it has been submitted that on account of continuation of this departmental proceeding for such a long period has been debarred from promotion though juniors to him have already been promoted. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for quashing the order of suspension which was not interferred with and he was asked to file his written statement meaning thereby that court did not feel inclined to interefere with the proceeding. Petitioner was rather asked to file written statement, and respondents were also directed to conclude departmental proceeding within a given time. As stated by the petitioner he filed written statement as per direction but Departmental Enquiry Commissioner returned it saying that no proceeding is pending in view of non-compliance of mandatory provision for holding departmental proceeding. Admittedly, proceeding once initiated, remained undecided for one or other reason, it cannot be held that in view of order dated 7.12.2000 passed by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, no proceeding is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has received notice in the year 2005 for filing written statement. Even if petitioner had already submitted his written statement on 21.8.2001 which was returned by Commissioner, Department Enquiry, in that case he should furnish fresh copy of same written statement before the enquiry officer in order to expedite the departmental proceeding. Petitioner must file his written statement within two weeks from today. The respondents are directed to conclude the departmental proceeding against the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pass final order. The departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner cannot be quashed only on account of delay. 6. This application is dismissed.