Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 768 (PAT)

Yogendra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-17

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment A.K.Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner the respondent. Electricity Board and the State. 2. According to the petitioner on a departmental proceeding initiated against him enquiry was held and the enquiry officer after detailed analysis of evidence which had come in the same, concluded that both the charges brought against the proceedee are not established/proved. 3. The petitioner states that thereafter notice dated 22.11.2002 contained in annexure-22 was issued against him. This has been issued in the background that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and therefore a notice was issued to him against the same said disagreement. This notice has however found fault according to the petitioner because the disciplinary authority by virtue of this notice has also stated the proposed punishment which was contemplated to be imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. 4. The petitioner, therefore, submits that this is an erroneous order. He does not dispute the right of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. But in case he decides to disagree with the findings of the enquiry he ought to have issued a notice to the delinquent giving out his reason and evidence by virtue of which he is in disagreement with the enquiry officer. It is only after the employee files his show cause then the question of either imposing punishment or exonerating the employee from the charges will come UP. According to the petitioner the disciplinary authority has mistakenly merged the two steps into one. The order contained in annexure-22 is a notice contemplating punishment rather than a notice Knowing disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer. Reading of annexure-22 does disclose the position which has been indicated by the petitioner. 5. That being the position, this Court accordingly quashes annexure-22 dated 22.11.2002 as well as the order of punishment dated 22.5.2003 contained in annexure-25. 6. The disciplinary authority is now directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner listing out the reason for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and on such show cause being filed by the petitioner future course of action with regard to punishment against the petitioner, if any will be taken. 7. This writ application accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated above.