Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1489 (PAT)

Harish Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar

2012-10-19

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.1989 passed by the Collector, Samastipur, by which, pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and further there was order that in respect of period of suspension he would not be paid anything except the subsistence allowance. This was not interfered with in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga. There is a counter affidavit on record. 2. The petitioner was a Revenue Karmchari and apparently he was entrusted with work of supervising the construction of 15 units of Harijan Houses. It appears that an inspection was conducted by the S.D.O. and others and they found some defects in the construction. The matter was reported to the Collector. The Collector, on receipt of the report, suspended the petitioner. Petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 22.3.1984. In the departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer enquired into the matter and submitted his report dated 13.6.1988, clearly finding that the petitioner was not guilty of any charge as levelled against him. The enquiry report is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Notwithstanding the submission of the enquiry report in the year 1988 itself, it may be noticed here that on 22.10.1986 itself, during pendency of the enquiry, petitioner's suspension order was revoked. The enquiry report having been submitted, as aforesaid, the Collector straightway disagreed with the enquiry report by the impugned order dated 8.2.1989 holding the petitioner guilty of defective construction passed the punishment order as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole procedure as followed was against law. He submits that petitioner was mere Karmchari. He was neither an Engineer nor a technical man. He had only to supervise the work, which had earlier been partly done not to the satisfaction of the authorities, as such, the blame could not been put on him. In any view of the matter, he submits that once the Inquiry Officer had enquired into the matter and completely exonerated the petitioner then, if the Disciplinary Authority wanted to• disagree with the Inquiry Officer, he was required to disclose his reasons and after communicating the enquiry report issue notice to the petitioner in that regards. He was, then, to proceed in the matter. In the present case, he did nothing like that. He was, then, to proceed in the matter. In the present case, he did nothing like that. Having to disagree with the enquiry report, he proceeded straightway to punish the petitioner. That is impermissible. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that from the order sheet it appears that once the enquiry report was submitted exonerating the petitioner, the Collector asked the Inquiry Officer to go and make spot enquiry once again and file a report. The report having been filed, the Collector proceeded to take necessary action. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that this is wholly impermissible. Once the enquiry report was submitted, then the Collector could not order an enquiry by the same officer behind the back of the petitioner and then act on this enquiry report which was never disclosed to the petitioner. Thus, on both these counts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sustained. 5. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. It is well settled principle of law that an order quasi-judicial in nature has to be made consistent with the principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice enshrines that whatever enquiry has to be made, it has to be made in presence of the person and it has disclosed to the person and, if' any action is, to be based on such a report. In the present case, in the counter affidavit itself, it is mentioned that being dissatisfied with the enquiry report, the Collector ordered the Inquiry Officer to make a spot verification and apparently it is on basis thereof that he proceeded. This is totally impermissible and is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the law is settled in this regard that if disciplinary authority is not the Inquiry Officer then, if on submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority intends to differ, he must then disclose the enquiry report to the delinquent with reasons for taking a different view of the matter. Upon this being furnished to the delinquent, he is granted an opportunity to satisfy the authority that the view being taken is not correct. Again, in the present case, all this has been given a complete go-by. 6. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to allow the writ petition. Upon this being furnished to the delinquent, he is granted an opportunity to satisfy the authority that the view being taken is not correct. Again, in the present case, all this has been given a complete go-by. 6. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to allow the writ petition. The impugned order, as passed by the disciplinary authority, is set aside. It goes without saying that once the order is set aside then the order by which the petitioner has been deprived of his full emolument during period of suspension also cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4 dated 8.2.1989 of the Collector, Samastipur is set aside. 7. The writ petition is allowed.