Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1356 (JHR)

Prem Chandra Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 31.05.2011. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Pursuant to order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 (Om Prakash Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) with batch cases, the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court in W. P. (S) No. 628 of 2010 and W. P. (S) No. 4275 of 2010 and in pursuance of order passed in said case, the petitioners were reinstated by order dated 09.05.2011 and 28.05.2011 and they gave their joining. However, by an order contained in Memo dated 31.05.2011, orders passed on 09.05.2011 and 28.05.2011 were recalled on the ground that the report submitted by the enquiry committee appears to be faulty. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that on such plea, orders passed on 09.05.2011 and 28.05.2011 cannot be recalled. She has further submitted that no showcause notice was issued to the petitioners before recalling the orders passed on 09.05.2011 and 28.05.2011. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the ground taken in the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 for recalling orders passed on 09.05.2011 and 28.05.2011 cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. On mere presumption, an order appointing the petitioners on Class III posts could not have been recalled. No reason except that, the procedure adopted by the Committee appeared to be faulty, has been disclosed in the impugned order. The impugned order dated 31.05.2011 discloses only a doubt expressed by the respondent authority. 7. In “Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1277 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 18. “Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, we may remind ourselves of the principles, in point, crystallised by judicial decisions. The first of these principles is that disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of a quasi judicial character; therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e. evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. As pointed out by this Court in Union of India Vs. H. C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , “the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules” 8. In the case of “Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar”, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 67 , the Hon'ble Supreme court while stressing the need to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing suspicion to take the place of proof, has held thus, 8. “............. The court has to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing mere suspicion, howsoever strong, to take the place of proof. A mere moral conviction or a suspicion howsoever grave it may be cannot take the place of proof.” 9. In view of the aforesaid, without going into the factual dispute, the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 is hereby quashed. However, it would be open to the respondents to carry further enquiry in the matter and, if necessary, pass fresh order in the matter, after issuing show-cause notice to the petitioners.