Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1461 (PAT)

Shekhar Chandra Verma v. State of Bihar

2015-12-04

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2015
ORDER : 1. Perused the materials on record. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 6.8.2013, the State counsel has produced the relevant records. The petitioner prays for quashing resolution of the Bihar Government dated 28.11.2013, issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, by which the punishment of stoppage of promotion for three years and reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay for a period of three years without cumulative effect, has been awarded to the petitioner, finding him guilty for wrong declaration of result of Zila Parishad in Constituency No. 30. 3. The petitioner, who is presently posted as the Joint Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, earlier moved this Court for setting aside order dated 25.6.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13760 of 2012. Prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition reads as follows:- “(i) For quashing resolution of the Govt. of Bihar contained in Memo No. 2/C-3041/2008/9091 dated 25.06.2012 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Patna, whereby punishment of censure has been awarded against the petitioner. (ii) For commanding the respondent No. 04 not to take into account this order of punishment at the time of the consideration of the promotion of petitioner to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service.” 4. The challenge was founded on the premises that the impugned order is factually incorrect both on facts and in law in as much as, though the petitioner was inflicted minor punishment of censor, the same in effect would deprieve him of promotion. The challenge was founded on the premises that the impugned order is factually incorrect both on facts and in law in as much as, though the petitioner was inflicted minor punishment of censor, the same in effect would deprieve him of promotion. The details of charge is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the order dated 20.9.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13760 of 2012, which is quoted herein below:- izi= & ^^d** ¼1½ inkf/kdkjh dk uke & Jh 'ks[kjpUnz oekZ ¼2½ inuke & vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] fcgkj'kjhQ ¼3½ oRrZeku inLFkkiu & vuqeaMy dk;kZy;] fcgkj'kjhQ ¼4½ osrueku & dzekad vkjksi vkjksi dk laf{kIr fooj.k 1- fuokZpu tSls egRoiw.kZ dk;Z esa ykijokgh cjrukA 1- f=Lrjh; iapk;r fuokZpu 2006 ds volj ij ftyk ifj"kn lnL; in ds fy, fuokZpu gsrq vki fuokZph inkf/kdkjh fu;qDr FksA vkids }kjk fnukad 21-6-2006 dks izknsf'kd fuokZpu {ks= la[;k&30 fcgkj'kjhQ iwohZ dh erx.kuk ds dze esa izi= 21 ds fiNys iUuk eas vafdr vkadM+ksa dh x.kuk ugha dh xbZ rFkk lkeus ds iUuk ds x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij gh ifj.kke ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k] ftlds QyLo:i Jherh eatw nsoh xyr :i ls fot;h ?kksf"kr gks xbZ tcfd nksuksa iUuk dh x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij okLrfod :i ls Jh lR;sUnz dqekj fot;h FksA 2- ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djus ds ckn vkids i=kad 516@fuokZ0 fnukad 04-07-06 }kjk fyf[kr :i ls izfrosfnr bl laca/k esa fd;k x;kA bl vkyksd esa bl ekeys dh tkap vij lekgRrkZ uDly ls djkbZ xbZ] ftUgksaus tkapksijkUr izfrosfnr fd;k fd Jherh eatw nsoh dks izFke iUuk ds vkadM+ksa ds vk/kkj ij vf/kd er izkIr gq, gS] tcfd nksuksa iUuk ds vkadM+ksa ds vuqlkj Jh lR;sUnz dqekj dks vf/kd er izkIr gq, gSa ,oa vkids }kjk izFke iUuk ds x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij gh ifj.kke ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k gSA vius izfrosnu esa mls fyfidh; Hkwy crk;k gS ijUrq ,d fuokZph inkf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs vki vius mRrjnkf;Ro ls cjh ugha gks tkrs gSa fuokZpu tSls egRoiw.kZ dk;Z esa vkids }kjk lko/kkuh cjrh tkuh pkfg, Fkh D;ksafd vkidh bl xyrh ls ,d xyr izR;k'kh fot;h ?kksf"kr gq,A g0@& vLi"V ftyk inkf/kdkjh] ukyUnkA 5. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the reports of the Collector of the district as also of the District Election Officer observed that there was no mala-fide on the part of the petitioner in declaring the result of Manju Devi as a winning candidate and in fact the same had been on account of the lapse on the part of the officials and the employees engaged in conducting the counting of votes. This Court further observed that though all these aspects were detailed in the show cause reply dated 30.3.3012, but the same was not duly considered by the Disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of punishment of censor. This Court, as such, quashed the impugned order of punishment and remanded the matter with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order, but only after taking into account the defence of the petitioner disclosed in the show cause reply dated 30.3.2012 as well as after following the mandate of Rule 19(1)(d) r/w Rule 19(2)(vi) & (vii) of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 and in light of findings recorded in order of the Court itself. 6. In light of order dated 20.9.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13760 of 2012, the petitioner submitted his representation in time. The General Administration Department, Government of Bihar not only rejected the representation of the petitioner but even enhanced the punishment of censure into punishment of stoppage of promotion for three years and reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay for a period of three years without cumulative effect. 7. It would appear from the order of this Court dated 20.9.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13760 of 2012 that matter was remanded to the respondents to consider whether the punishment of censure was justifiable or not, as the said order was made even without even considering the defence of the petitioner taken in his show cause reply. The respondents instead of considering whether the punishment of censure was justifiable or not, enhanced the quantum of punishment. It is relevant to state that the department was not agreeing with the quantum of punishment, rather it was the petitioner who has challenged the order. The respondents instead of considering whether the punishment of censure was justifiable or not, enhanced the quantum of punishment. It is relevant to state that the department was not agreeing with the quantum of punishment, rather it was the petitioner who has challenged the order. In my view, the punishment could have been enhanced only after providing a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and only after consideration of observations contained in paragraphs 21 and 27 of the order dated 20.9.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13760 of 2012. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned resolution of the Bihar Government dated 28.11.2013, issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar is set aside with liberty to proceed afresh.