Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 196 (PAT)

Ram Pukar Sharma v. State of Bihar

2023-02-09

PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

body2023
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 18 (3) and (4) – Punishment of Compulsory Retirement – Though Presenting Officer was appointed, but he chose to play no role – Neither evidence was led nor any evidence was examined and entire role was played by Enquiry Officer – Reply to second show cause filed by petitioner was not at all considered – Impugned order does not at all disclose reason as to why defence submitted by petitioner was not acceptable – Non-compliance of same resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and same is also against provisions of Rule 18 (3) and (4) of Rules, 2005 – Impugned orders set aside – Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner to post of "Jan Sevak" for rest of his service with all consequential benefits – Writ Petition allowed. (Paras 6 and 7) Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi learned counsel for petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of State to assist the court. 2. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs: – (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in quashing the order communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1355 dated 14.11.2015 passed by the Collector, Jehanabad whereby the petitioner has been compulsory retired, contained in Annexure-5. (ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in quashing the order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Service Appeal No. 223 of 2015 whereby the Appeal has been dismissed, contained in Annexure-6. (iii) for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of “Jan Sevak” for the rest of his service with all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this writ application are that while the petitioner was posted as “Jan Sewak”, Block Office-Hulasganj, Jehanabad. He was placed under suspension by Respondent no. 3 vide Memo No. 1741 dated 23.12.2013 on the allegation of irregularity in distribution of fund in “Mukhya Mantri Kanya Vivah Yojna”. A departmental proceeding was initiated on 18.01.2014. After submission of enquiry report, order of compulsory retirement was passed, thereafter, petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2016. 4. He was placed under suspension by Respondent no. 3 vide Memo No. 1741 dated 23.12.2013 on the allegation of irregularity in distribution of fund in “Mukhya Mantri Kanya Vivah Yojna”. A departmental proceeding was initiated on 18.01.2014. After submission of enquiry report, order of compulsory retirement was passed, thereafter, petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2016. 4. The short point raised on behalf of petitioner to assail the order of compulsory retirement as contained in Annexure-5 is to the effect that in this case though presenting officer was appointed, but he did not chose to play any role. No evidence was led on behalf of presenting officer. Secondly, without considering the second show cause, the Collector Jehanabad vide Memo No. 1355 dated 14.11.2015 awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to deal with the defence of the petitioner. In this case, without considering the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner, impugned order of punishment has been passed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, there is no rebuttal on reply to the point of law raised by the petitioner. 6. From bare perusal of the inquiry report as well as impugned order it is apparent that though presenting officer was appointed, but he chose to play no role. Neither evidence was led nor any evidence was examined and the entire role was played by the enquiry officer. It is apparent that the reply to the second show cause filed by the petitioner was not at all considered. The impugned order does not at all disclose the reason as to why the defence submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable. Non-compliance of the same resulted in violation of principal of natural justice and same is also against the provisions of Rule 18(3) and (4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.C.A. Rules, 2005’). 7. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and materials available on record, order dated 14.11.2015 passed in the Collector, Jehanabad vide Memo No. 1355 as contained in Annexure-5 and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Service Appeal No. 223 of 2015 as contained in Annexure-6 are hereby set aside. 7. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and materials available on record, order dated 14.11.2015 passed in the Collector, Jehanabad vide Memo No. 1355 as contained in Annexure-5 and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Service Appeal No. 223 of 2015 as contained in Annexure-6 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post of “Jan Sevak” for the rest of his service with all consequential benefits. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.