Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1357 (PAT)

Mahesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2009-10-30

body2009
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 24.8.2007 for stoppage of one salary increment with cumulative effect and entry thereof in the service book as affirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 28.5.2009. 3. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on the charge that he was taken into custody on 13.4.2005 in a criminal prosecution and remained in custody as such till 10.6.2005. Concealing the same, he gave an application on 13.4.2005 for leave on the ground of ailment of his wife for the period 12.4.2005 to 12.5.2005. The concealment of the custody and submission of an application for leave on another ground was alleged to be serious misconduct, unbecoming of a Government servant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are bad in law inasmuch as they do not take into consideration, the defence of the petitioner that he had, in fact, given such application on 12.4.2005 but by mistake the application bore the date 13.4.2005. Additionally, the other procedural lapses in the impugned orders with regard to the departmental proceedings were sought to be urged. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of this court in 2009(2) PLJR 373 to contend that the order of punishment and of the appellate authority does not properly take into consideration the defence of the petitioner that he had entered the date erroneously and, therefore; the orders being non-speaking in nature are not sustainable apart from other grounds urged in defence. 5. The judgment relied upon concerned a case with regard to imposition of a minor punishment where only a show cause and consideration of the reply is concerned as distinct from the present where a full-fledged departmental enquiry has been held. Furthermore, In the judgment sought to be relied upon, the petitioner was not admitting the charges. 6. In the facts of the present case, the admitted fact acknowledged by the petitioner in his reply to the charges was that the application did bear the date 13.4.2005. His defence is that the authorities have erred in disbelieving his defence. The jurisdiction of this Court in reviewing the order of punishment under a departmental proceeding is limited. 6. In the facts of the present case, the admitted fact acknowledged by the petitioner in his reply to the charges was that the application did bear the date 13.4.2005. His defence is that the authorities have erred in disbelieving his defence. The jurisdiction of this Court in reviewing the order of punishment under a departmental proceeding is limited. Once the petitioner has admitted the charge acknowledging that the application did bear the date 13.4.2005 and the defence has been disbelieved by the authorities, it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to sit in judgment on merits over the findings of the authorities on facts, moreso, when the fact is admitted by the petitioner himself. Alternately, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly acknowledged that even the defence that was. taken with regard to the ailment of his wife from 12.4.2005 to 12.5.2005 was not substantiated by leading evidence or documents before the Inquiry Officer. 7. Once the charge stands admitted, his defence has been disbelieved, any procedural lapses of any nature in the departmental proceedings as alleged is inconsequential and does not vitiate the order of punishment. 8. In (2007)13 SCC 352 , an application was made for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of the father. It came to be terminated on the ground that he secured the appointment by suppressing the fact that his mother was in service. The challenge laid out was that the termination could not have been done without a formal show cause notice and in accordance with law. A Bench of the High Court declined interference, which came to be upset by the Division Bench. Upsetting the judgment of the Division Bench, the Supreme Court held that where the charge itself was admitted and not in dispute, any lapses were inconsequential. Similar view has been taken in (2008) 5 SCC 569 that admitted facts need not be proved and procedural lapses in departmental proceedings in such cases were inconsequential. 9. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.