Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1083 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Sriwastwa v. State of Bihar

2023-09-21

RAJIV ROY

body2023
Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard the parties. 2. The present petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: – (i) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 25/07/2013 passed by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which in terms of the provisions contained under rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner as a minor penalty; (ii) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 14/10/2016 issued by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which the review petition preferred by the petitioner against the resolution dated 25/07/2013, by which the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect had been inflicted upon the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 has been rejected; (iii) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner that have been denied to him on account of the passing the impugned resolution dated 25/07/2013 passed by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, the punishment of withholding of two increments. without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner as a minor penalty. 3. The short facts relating to the writ petition is/are that the petitioner joined as a Labour Superintendent in the year 1995 and while posted in the office of Agriculture Labour, Patna was given the additional charge of Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai for a brief period from August, 2009 to December, 2009. 4. On 07.04.2011, while he was serving as a Labour Superintendent, Agriculture Labour, Patna, received letter from the office of the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger which related to an enquiry report pursuant to the direction of the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi (henceforth for short, 'the Commission'). 4. On 07.04.2011, while he was serving as a Labour Superintendent, Agriculture Labour, Patna, received letter from the office of the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger which related to an enquiry report pursuant to the direction of the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi (henceforth for short, 'the Commission'). On perusal of it, it was found that it relates to the use of child labour in the colour and vermilion factory at Lakhisarai and the report 'the Commission' had sought for was of the years 2000-2001 (Annexure-1). 5. From the records, it seems that in 2000-2001, a petition was preferred before 'the Commission' alleging the use of child labour in chemical factory in the district of Lakhisarai, after which report was sought for. 6. At the relevant period, the Official posted there was Mr. Aditya Rajhansh who remained as Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai from the period June, 1998 to 17th July, 2001. He was followed by Smt. Kavita Kumari who was posted from 17.07.2001 to the year 2002. 7. The petitioner comes at Serial No. 6 having been posted for a brief period between 14.08.2009 to 26.12.2009. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was unrelated to the entire episode inasmuch as the matter was never placed during his brief stay at Lakhisarai. 9. He has further taken this Court to the izi= ^d* issued to him by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai on 13.04.2011 to show that the documents that has been annexed as evidences relates to the year 2000-2002. The only document that has come against him is the report of the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 10. He submits that before he joined the office of Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai in August 2009, pursuant to the letter of 'the Commission' no. 263 dated 16.05.2017, the then Labour Superintendent had already lodged FIR in the matter. Further, till 2007, beside Mr. Aditya Rajhansh and Mrs. Kavita Kumari, Mr. Jayant Kumar, Mr. Keshri Nandan Thakur were there. He has been made a scapegoat in the matter and accordingly, after putting him on show cause, was punished with the withholding to two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure-4 to the petition). 11. He submits that subsequently, he preferred a review petition before 'the Department' on 06.08.2014 (Annexure-6 to the petition). 12. He has been made a scapegoat in the matter and accordingly, after putting him on show cause, was punished with the withholding to two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure-4 to the petition). 11. He submits that subsequently, he preferred a review petition before 'the Department' on 06.08.2014 (Annexure-6 to the petition). 12. He submits that the same was taken by 'the Department' and as per the file noting procured by him under RTI Act, the Principal Secretary in his noting gave opinion that the review petition can be accepted and the punishment can be withdrawn. 13. 12. He submits that the same was taken by 'the Department' and as per the file noting procured by him under RTI Act, the Principal Secretary in his noting gave opinion that the review petition can be accepted and the punishment can be withdrawn. 13. The file noting relating to the Principal Secretary is at Annexure-12 which is incorporated here-in-below: – Ñi;k 65@fVñ ij Hkonh; i`PNk ,oa i`"B&66@fVñ dh fVIi.khA dk;Zikfydk fu;ekoyh] 1979 ds fu;e 22 ¼2½ fVIi.kh&2 ¼i`"B 214@iñ n`"VO;½ ds vuqlkj jkT; lsok dh Js.kh nks ds inkfèkdkfj;ksa ij vkjksfir] fuUnu] osru o`f) ;k iafDrP;wfr vkfn ds fo:) vihy dk fu"iknu eq[; lfpo egksn; ds ekè;e ls ekuuh; eq[;ea=h ds vkns'k ls fd;k tkuk gSA vr% ;fn lgefr gks rks Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro] rRdkyhu Je vèkh{kd] eqaxsj lg y[khljk; lEizfr Je vèkh{kd ¼ÑñJñ½ iVuk ds iqufoZyksdu vthZ ij ekuuh; foHkkxh; ea=h dk vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk ldrk gSA rnksijkUr eq[; lfpo ds ekè;e ls ekuuh; eq[;ea=h dk vuqeksnu izkIr djus dh Ñik dh tk ldrh gSA ¼lat; dqekj flag½ la;qDr lfpoA izèkku lfpo Ñi;k fVIi.kh i`ñ 60&61 ij fVIi.kh dk voyksdu djuk pkgsaxs] ftlesa Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro] rRdkyhu Je vèkh{kd] y[khljk; lEizfr Je vèkh{kd ¼ÑñJñ½] iVuk }kjk nkf[ky iqufoZyksdu vthZ dh leh{kk dh x;h gSA ewy :i esa ekeyk ;g gS fd o"kZ 2000 esa Mªksfy;k jax ,oa flUnqj QSDVªh rFkk uVjkt dsfedYl y[khljk; esa cky Jfedksa ls dke ysus rFkk U;wure etnwjh dk Hkqxrku ugha djus ls lacafèkr ,d okn jk"Vªh; ekuokfèkdkj vk;ksx] ubZ fnYyh esa nk;j fd;k x;kA vk;ksx dks izfrosnu miyCèk djkus ds fy, ftyk inkfèkdkjh] y[khljk; ds funZs'k ij vuqe.My inkfèkdkjh] y[khljk; }kjk ekeys dh tk¡p dh x;h ,oa mUgksaus ifjokn dks lR; ikrs gq, ftyk inkfèkdkjh dks izfrosfnr fd;kA rn~uqlkj ftyk inkfèkdkjh] y[khljk; us Je vèkh{kd ¼ÑñJñ½] eqaxsj ij dkjZokbZ djus ds fy, fy[kkA bl dkjZokbZ esa foyEc gqvk ,oa varr% o"kZ 2007 esa vfHk;kstu nk;j gqvk] ftls dkyokfèkr ekurs gq, lacafèkr U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA okn esa jk"Vªh; ekuokfèkdkj vk;ksx ds funsZ'k ds vkyksd esa rRdkyhu ize.Myh; vk;qDr] eqaxsj }kjk ekeys dh tk¡p dh x;h ,oa o"kZ 2000&2011 rd Je vèkh{kd] eqaxsj≶&y[khljk; ds in ij inLFkkfir lHkh inkfèkdkfj;ksa ds fo:) vkjksi xfBr dj vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ dh vuq'kalk dh xbZA bl Øe esa dqy 8 inkfèkdkfj;ksa ds fo:) dkjZokbZ dh vuq'kalk gqbZ] ftlesa ls ,d >kj[k.M esa inLFkkfir Fks] 'ks"k 7 esa ls 2 inkfèkdkjh dks n.M ls eqDr fd;k x;k rFkk ,d ds Li"Vhdj.k dks larks"kizn ekurs gq, mu ij foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ugha pyk;h x;hA Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro dks fVIi.kh i`ñ 23 ij ekuuh; eq[; ¼Je lalkèku½ ea=h ds vkns'k fnukad&21-07-2013 ds vkyksd esa nks osruo`f) vlap;kRed izHkko ls jksdus dk n.M fn;k x;kA Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro ds iqufoZyksdu vthZ esa eq[; rF; ;g gS fd os dHkh eqaxsj esa inLFkkfir gh ugha Fks ,oa os y[khljk; ds izHkkj esa o"kZ 2008&09 esa ek=k 4 eghus 12 fnu Fks tks fd 12 vxLr] 2009 ls 26 fnlEcj] 2009 rd FksA mYys[kuh; gS fd bl ekeys esa fujh{k.k 02-12-2000 dks fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa vfHk;kstu o"kZ 2007 esa nk;j fd;k x;kA bl izdkj o"kZ 2009&8 esa y[khljk; esa inLFkkfir inkfèkdkjh ds fo:) dksbZ dkjZokbZ dk ekeyk ugha curk Fkk ,oa ;gh rF; ml le; Hkh fVIi.kh i`"B 21&22 ij vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq rRdkyhu izèkku lfpo us bu rF;ksa dks utj vUnkt djrs gq, fVIi.kh i`ñ 23 ij n.M dk izLrko fn;k] ftls fVIi.kh i`ñ 23 ij gh ekuuh; eq[; ¼Je lalkèku½ ea=h }kjk lEiq"V fd;k x;kA bl izdkj Jh v:.k dqekj JhokLro ij dkjZokbZ uSlfxZd U;k; ds fo:) gS ,oa ;s u rks eqaxsj esa inLFkkfir Fks ,oa u gha buds Lrj ij fdlh rjg dh dkjZokbZ yafcr FkkA vr% izLrko gS fd buds iqufoZyksdu vthZ dks Lohdkj djrs gq, bUgsa fn;s x;s n.M dks lekIr fd;k tk ldrk gSA Hkonh; voyksduksijkUr eq[; lfpo ds ekè;e ls ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn; dk vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk,xkA ¼nhid dqekj flag½ izèkku lfpoA ekuuh; ea=h] Je lalk/ku foHkkx fcgkj ljdkj 14. Learned Counsel submits that this also got the nod of the Departmental Minister but at the Government level, the same was refused which followed the order in question. 15. Left with no alternative, the writ petition. 16. He submits that Mrs. Kavita Kumari who was posted at the relevant period when the illegal activities were going on in the colour and chemical factory in the district of Lakhisarai and was posted again and again, in her case, 'the Department' took a different view and her review application was accepted and she was exonerated of the charges by 'the Department' vide memo no. 2825 dated 18.09.2014. 17. He as such reiterates that for being posted for a brief period, a decade after the episode, he has been made a scapegoat, punished and the review petition despite the recommendation of the Principal Secretary duly accepted by the Departmental Minister was negated. He as such wants the Court to interfere in the matter. 18. Learned State Counsel with the help of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2 has parroted the facts of the case and stated that to benefit the factory, he worked during that brief period. Upon specific query, what was the benefit that was extended to the factory, neither from the reply nor the submission put forward by learned State Counsel, any answer came. 19. From the facts of the case, it is very clear that (i) the case relates to the year 2000-2001; (ii) 'the Commission' wanted reply from the District Administration who sat over the matter for years; (iii) when 'the Commission' in 2007 reminded the respondents, they awoke from deep slumber and before sending reply, took several steps which included the lodging of the FIR; (iv) all this happened during the period 2007-2008; (v) the petitioner came a year later in 2009 and by that time the steps were already taken; (vi) from the izi= ^d*] it is clear that all the evidences/documents that was/were annexed relates to the year 2001-2002. 20. In the year 2011, the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger submitted his report to 'the Commission' vide memo no. 487 dated 07.04.2011 in which while exonerating all the District Magistrates posted there between 1999 to 2011 chose to shift the responsibility on the Labour Superintendents for the said period (1999-2011) which included the petitioner who was posted in the year 2009. In the year 2011, the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger submitted his report to 'the Commission' vide memo no. 487 dated 07.04.2011 in which while exonerating all the District Magistrates posted there between 1999 to 2011 chose to shift the responsibility on the Labour Superintendents for the said period (1999-2011) which included the petitioner who was posted in the year 2009. Only because the report was sent in the year 2011, the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger rounded up everyone posted there till then. 21. From the file noting which the petitioner procured under the RTI Act, the Principal Secretary of 'the Department' was also of the view that the review application of the petitioner can be considered and he can be exonerated of the charges. This was also approved by the concerned Minister but at the Government level, different view was taken. 22. Further, Mrs. Kavita Kumari who was posted at relevant period, her case was considered and review application accepted, she was exonerated of the charges. It is necessary to incorporate memo no. This was also approved by the concerned Minister but at the Government level, different view was taken. 22. Further, Mrs. Kavita Kumari who was posted at relevant period, her case was considered and review application accepted, she was exonerated of the charges. It is necessary to incorporate memo no. 2825 dated 18.09.2014 passed by ‘the Department’ exonerating her of the charges which read as follows: – Annexure-7 fcgkj ljdkj Je lalk/ku foHkkx ladYi Jherh dfork dqekjh rRdkyhu Je vèkh{kd] teqbZ≶&y[khljk; lEçfr lgk;d Jek;qDr dfVgkj ds fo#) ftyk inkfèkdkjh y[khljk; ls çkIr çi= ^d* ,oa ml ij Jek;qDr fcgkj ds i=kad 2222 fnukad&11-06-2012 }kjk çkIr la'kksfèkr çi= *d* esa xfBr vkjksi ds vkèkkj ij foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&1816 fnukad&28-06-2012 }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh çkjEHk dh x;h ,oa bl foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu inkfèkdkjh Jh HkwisUæ dqekj flag] la;qDr lfpo Je lalkèku foHkkx fu;qDr fd;s x;sA bl foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu inkfèkdkjh dk LFkkukUrj.k LokLF; foHkkx esa gks tkus ds QyLo:i la'kksfèkr ladYi la[;k&415 fnukad 14-02-2013 }kjk Jherh bUnq flag] mi lfpo Je lalkèku foHkkx dks lapkyu inkfèkdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA Jherh dfork dqekjh ds fo:) çi= ^d* esa xfBr vkjksiksa ij lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lapkyu inkfèkdkjh us vius tkap çfrosnu esa muds fo:) yxk;s x;s lHkh N% ¼06½ vkjksiksa dks çekf.kr ik;kA lapkyu inkfèkdkjh ls çkIr tk¡p çfrosnu ij Jherh dfork dqekjh ls f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk dh ekax dh x;hA ftlds tOkkc esa Jherh dfork dqekjh }kjk iwoZ dh ckrksa dks nksgjk;k x;k vkSj N% vkjksiksa esa ek=k nks vkjksiksa ij è;ku dsfUær fd;k x;k] ftlesa foHkkxh; leh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd Jherh dfork dqekjh okLro esa y[khljk; ds Je vèkh{kd ds çHkkj esa Fkh vkSj tk¡p inkfèkdkjh us bldh iqf"V tk¡p çfrosnu esa dh gSA vr,o ljdkj ds lE;d leh{kksijkUr Jherh dfork dqekjh ds fo:) mDr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa nks"k fl) gksus ds QyLo:i fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds Hkkx&5 dafMdk&14 dh mi dafMdk&5 ds rgr y?kq n.M ds :i esa mudh nks osru o`f);k¡ vlap;kRed çHkko ls jksds tkus dk n.M foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&4481 fnukad 04-12-2013 }kjk vfèkjksfir fd;k x;kA foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa ikfjr mDr fuèkkZfjr n.M ij iqufoZyksdu ,oa n.M lalwpu ls eqDr fd;s tkus lacaèkh ekuuh; eq[;ea=h lg çHkkjh ea=h Je lalkèku foHkkx dks lEcksfèkr vH;kosnu Jherh dfork dqekjh lgk;d Jek;qDr dfVgkj ds Kkikad&16 fnukad 13-01-2014 }kjk çkIr gqvkA mDr iqufoZyksdu vH;kosnu dh leh{kk dh x;hA leh{kk ds Øe esa fu.kZ;kuqlkj Jherh dfork dqekjh ds fo:) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa lapkyu inkfèkdkjh ls çkIr tkap çfrosnu ,oa Jherh dqekjh ls çkIr iqufoZyksdu vH;kosnu ij ftyk inkfèkdkjh y[khljk; ,oa Jek;qDr fcgkj ls fLFkfr Li"V djrs gq, çfrosnu miyCèk djkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA mDr nksuks inkfèkdkfj;ksa ls çkIr çfrosnu ds lE;d leh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd pwafd ftyk inkfèkdkjh y[khljk; ds i= }kjk çklafxd ekeys esa Je vèkh{kd eqaxsj dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk jgk gS ,oa ;g fo"k; Jherh dfork dqekjh ds laKku esa ugha jgkA vr% muds fo:) vkjksi oS| çrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% çklafxd ekeys esa Jherh dfork dqekjh ls çkIr iqufoZyksdu vthZ ij ftyk inkfèkdkjh y[khljk; ,oa Jek;qDr fcgkj ls çkIr çfrosnu ds vkyksd esa lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, muds iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk ij fopkj dj mUgsa fn;s x;s n.M ls eqDr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA 2- çLrko esa l{ke çkf/kdkj dk vuqeksnu çkIr gSA vkns'k%&vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dh ,d çfr Jherh dfork dqekjh] rRdkyhu Je vèkh{kd] teqbZ≶&y[khljk;] lEçfr lgk;d Jek;qDr] dfVgkj dks fucafèkr Mkd ls miyCèk djk;saA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls gñ& ¼nso uUnu ;kno½ ljdkj ds vij lfpo 23. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is without any basis. There is nothing on record to prove that he allegedly extended benefits to the factory. He was posted after the FIR was already lodged. The successive District Magistrates sat over the matter and did not sent report to ‘the Commission’ but were exonerated of the charges. 24. Thus the order against the petitioner needs interference. 25. Accordingly, the order passed vide memo no. 2540 dated 25.07.2013 and memo no. 2987 dated 14.10.2016 both issued by the Labour Resources Department, Bihar, Patna stands quashed. 26. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits. 27. The writ petition stands disposed of.