Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2436 (PAT)

Pradip Chandra Thakur v. State of Bihar

2011-12-09

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2011
JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.-This writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order contained in Memo No.605 dated 17.5.1995 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, by which the petitioner has been awarded certain punishment as described at serial no.2 to 4 of the said order. The further prayer is for quashing of the appellate order issued under Memo No. 638 dated 7.2.1998 under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government which was communicated to the petitioner under letter No. 312 dated 17.3.1998, by which he was informed that the appeal/representation filed by him has been rejected. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are noticed hereunder:- The petitioner while being posted as Assistant Engineer at Mashan Canal Rivision No.1 at Ramnagar was made accused in Mahalghat P.S. Case No.10/93 dated 21.1.1993 and charge-sheet No.12/93 dated 25.2.1993 was also submitted in the said case. Subsequently cognizance was also taken for the offences under sections 341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alongwith other two accused was granted bail by the court concerned on 21.6.1993 and subsequently on the basis of compromise and the fact that the offences were compoundable all the accused were acquitted and discharged from their liabilities of their respective bail bonds by order dated 21.6.1993. The ghost of the said case, however, did not die and the department placed the petitioner under suspension by issuing order under Memo No.1, dated 6.1.1994 under the signature of the Joint Secretary of the department invoking the provision of rule-49A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules on the charge that he was an accused in Mahalghat P.S. Case No.10/93 in which charge-sheet has also been submitted on 25.2.1993. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating the facts as they were in as much as he stood acquitted on 21.6.1993 itself and thus he prayed that the proceedings be closed against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating the facts as they were in as much as he stood acquitted on 21.6.1993 itself and thus he prayed that the proceedings be closed against him. The petitioner was, however, visited with the order impugned dated 17.5.1995 by which though his suspension was revoked from the date of the order but he was inflicted three punishments being censure which was to be entered in his character roll for the year 1992-93, warning that if in future his conduct remained the same then he would be given a major punishment and finally that for the period of suspension he would not be entitled for anything beyond the subsistence allowance. The petitioner represented before the Joint Secretary against the said order which was also rejected by the order dated 7.2.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order by challenging the very initiation of the departmental proceeding which, according to him, was based on a charge which did not exist on the day the same was framed and the petitioner was put under suspension. He submits that the respondents have committed grave illegality and irregularity which also smacks of bias and mala-fide. He submits that when the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court then the department could not have acted against him and that too on the wrong premise since the case already stood disposed of much before the petitioner being put under suspension and so charged. He submits that in any view of the matter for the reasons aforesaid the ground and basis of the charge and suspension itself being non-est, the entire proceeding and finally passing of the impugned order stands vitiated in law. For the same reason the appellate order also deserves to be set aside for the reason that it is a cryptic order of rejection without even discussing the issues remotely. 4. Learned counsel for the State, from the counter affidavit filed, submits that the punishment being minor, no elaborate procedure had to be adopted while inflicting the same and whatever was required under the law has been done and thus the petitioner cannot claim that the procedural requirements have been violated or the principles of natural justice not followed. 4. Learned counsel for the State, from the counter affidavit filed, submits that the punishment being minor, no elaborate procedure had to be adopted while inflicting the same and whatever was required under the law has been done and thus the petitioner cannot claim that the procedural requirements have been violated or the principles of natural justice not followed. He also submits that the department could have taken due cognizance of the mere fact that a criminal case had been lodged irrespective of the fact that the petitioner was discharged on the basis of compromise and the acquittal was not on merit. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The department was totally misdirected and erred in initiating departmental proceeding and putting the petitioner under suspension on the charge which did not exist on the date of suspension and the day the charge was framed. The contention of learned counsel for the State, that such acquittal was based on compromise and not on merit justified the department in taking action is also misplaced for the reason that the department cannot become the appellate authority and sit over the order passed by the competent court in the criminal case and try to go into the original merit, moreso when the department itself has not dealt and gone into the merits. Thus, the department was absolutely unjustified in even initiating any proceeding much less putting the petitioner under suspension or inflicting the punishment as contained in order dated 17.5.1995. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the order dated 17.5.1995 contained in Memo No.605 as well as the order dated 7.2.1998 contained in Memo no.638. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including full payment of salary for the period he has remained under suspension. In view of the fact that this Court has come to a finding that the petitioner had been unduly harassed without any justification, this Court awards compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner for the harassment faced by him due to suspension and the proceedings against him. In view of the fact that this Court has come to a finding that the petitioner had been unduly harassed without any justification, this Court awards compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner for the harassment faced by him due to suspension and the proceedings against him. Let the compensation amount as well as the arrears on account of difference between his salary and the subsistence allowance, if not already paid, be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of three months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon respondent no.5. 7. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.