Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 802 (PAT)

Umesh Kumar Singh @ Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar

2022-09-13

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2022
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.:–Heard the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a false and frivolous complaint was registered against the petitioner and an enquiry was directed to be conducted in the matter. The petitioner appeared before the three members enquiry forum and the said enquiry report does not indict the petitioner of having committed any misconduct. The learned appearing for the petitioner further submits that in spite of the enquiry report exonerating the petitioner of the charge, he has been punished with removal from service without giving any opportunity or notice for disagreement with the enquiry report. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was a temporary employee and no further opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. 4. In the case of S.P. Malhotra Vrs. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 , the Apex Court has held that if the person exonerated by the enquiry officer and employer disagree with the enquiry report, he is bound to serve a disagreement notice stating the points of disagreement before passing of an order of punishment. Paragraph 18 of the judgment passed in the case of S.P. Malhotra (supra) is as under :— In fact, not furnishing the copy of the recorded reasons for disagreement from the enquiry report itself causes the prejudice to the delinquent and therefore, it has to be understood in an entirely different context than that of the issue involved in ECIL. 5. In the present case, admittedly no disagreement notice was served on the petitioner and the order of dismissal from service has been passed. 6. Keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the order of dismissal stands vitiated in law and accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The order, dated 22nd January, 2016, is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to first serve a disagreement notice, if any, and pass fresh order, if they so choose. The petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits.