← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/4596/2020allowed

Ramdeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-18Mr. Justice Harish Kumar25 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4596 of 2020 ====================================================== Ramdeo Yadav S/o Lakhan Yadav R/o Village- Premjiwar, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Deputy Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation through its Managing Director, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 5.

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 6.

The District Magistrate cum Collector, Darbhanga. 7.

The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga.

8.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Benipur, Darbhanga. 9.

The Special Executive Officer cum Deputy Chief (Legal) cum Inquiry Officer of Departmental Proceeding, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 10.

The Deputy Chief Administration, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG 5 For the BSFC :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Shilpi Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

2/25 CAV JUDGMENT Date : 18-06-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 08.11.2019 as contained in Annexure P/38 issued by the Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the "BSFC"), whereby the representation of the petitioner preferred in terms of order dated 06.08.2019 passed in CWJC No. 17137 of 2014 came to be rejected. The petitioner also assailed the enquiry report submitted by the Special Executive Officer cum Deputy Chief (Legal) cum Enquiry Officer dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure-P/25) as also the order contained in Memo No. 7763 dated 17.07.2014 came to be passed by the Managing Director inflicting the punishment of (i) reduction to lower time scale for three years without increment, (ii) forfeiture of all the benefits except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and (iii) recovery of Rs. 3,70,244/- (Rs.2,30,245/- as cost of grains and rice and Rs.1,39,999/- as interest).

3. The facts which led to filing of the present writ petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Godown Manager, Benipur, Darbhanga, on 28.04.2011, one Rajesh Kumar Mandal, son of late Manoj Mandal filed a

3/25 complaint alleging therein that his father late Manoj Mandal was suffering from cancer and was undergoing treatment at Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, Patna with effect from 13.04.2011 to 20.04.2011 and he returned to his village on 20.04.2011 and died on 21.04.2011, but the record showing receipt of foodgrains, though, in the period, afore noted, there would not be any question of receiving of 43.20 quintals of wheat and 64.60 quintals of rice on 19.04.2011. The aforesaid complaint addressed to the Block Supply Officer was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer on 29.04.2011 vide letter No. 80. Based on the report of Block Supply Officer, the petitioner was directed vide Memo No. 252 dated 30.04.2011 to submit his show cause explanation within 24 hours.

The show cause notice stated that the food grains under Antyoday and BPL for the March 2011 were delivered to the Dealer late Manoj Mandal on 19.04.2011 pursuant to District Manager Order No. 55-56 dated 23.03.2011. The Sub Divisional Officer, Benipur on being dissatisfied with the show cause explanation of the petitioner vide its letter dated 09.06.2011 requested the Collector, Darbhanga to initiate departmental and criminal proceeding against the petitioner for alleged 64.60 quintals of rice and 43.20 quintals of wheat.

4. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was placed

4/25 under suspension vide Memo No. 5828 dated 19.07.2011 and immediately a memo of charge in prapatra (ka) was duly served upon him issued under the signature of the Managing Director dated 12.12.2011. The charge memo specifically contains (i) the allegation of suspicious delivery of food grains, despite the Dealer being under the treatment of cancer from 13.04.2011 to 20.04.2011 and died on 21.04.2011; and (ii) interpolation of records and misappropriation of 43.20 quintals of wheat and 64.40 quintals of rice on 19.04.2021. The Chief of Administration, BSFC directed the petitioner to file his defence statement vide letter No. 9121 dated 02.12.2011; and, simultaneously instructed the District Manager to lodge the FIR. In consequent thereto, Bahera P.S. Case No. 5 of 2012 came to be instituted on 06.01.

2012 under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was accorded regular bail on 15.06.2012 by the learned ACJM, Benipur. In the meanwhile during investigation, the SDPO, Biraul submitted a supervision report under Memo No. 577 of 2011 finding the allegation of misappropriation to be false and baseless. The afore noted supervision report was duly affirmed by the Senior Superintendent of Police under Memo No. 3344 dated 19.08.2012.

5/25

5. It would be pertinent to mention here that the police after closure of investigation submitted final report in favour of the petitioner due to lack of evidence. The same was accepted by the learned ACJM, Benipur on 31.08.2018 and the criminal case came to be closed.

6. During departmental enquiry, on submission of the defence statement of the petitioner, a clarification was sought from Mahavir Cancer Sansthan who confirmed that late Manoj Mandal was admitted only from09.07.2010 to 05.08.2010 contradicting the earlier claim for cancer treatment in April 2011. The SDO, Benipur vide Memo No. 466 dated 22.09.2012 also asked the wife of late Manoj Mandal to show cause for her affidavit stating therein that her husband had received and distributed food grains on 19.04.2011. In response thereto, she submitted her application enclosing her affidavit dated 13.07.2011 and the relevant supply and distribution documents showing distribution of food grains on 20.04.2011, 24.04.2011 and 25.04.2011. In the written defence statement, the petitioner also asserted that the delivery took place on 19.04.2011 and the food grains were distributed subsequently by the dealer's wife and son. The Enquiry Officer upon completion of the enquiry returned his finding holding the petitioner guilty of the charges

6/25 vide its report dated 19.12.2013. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with the second show cause notice under Memo No. 3546 dated 12.04.2014. The petitioner immediately responded to the show cause notice reiterating the facts and enclosing supply orders, affidavit and sale registers to support his contention. The response of the petitioner did not find favour and finally the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment as disclosed hereinabove vide Memo No. 7763 dated 19.07.2014.

7. It would be worth mentioning herein that while the petitioner was under suspension aggrieved with the action of the respondent Corporation, he preferred CWJC No. 20496 of 2012 which came to be disposed of on 23.11.2012 by a Bench of this Court directing the authorities to conclude the proceeding within six months. Subsequently, in view of the closure of the criminal case on account of acceptance of final form due to lack of evidence, the petitioner again approached this Court in CWJC No. 17137 of 2014 which was disposed of on 06.08.2019 directing the respondent Managing Director, BSFC to reconsider the punishment awarded to the petitioner having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr..[(1999) 3 SCC

7/25 679]. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a representation annexing the order of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), however it came to be rejected on the ground that the judicial process and the disciplinary proceeding are different process and the outcome of judicial process cannot be relied upon in the disciplinary proceeding. In the fore noted background, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned action and the order of the respondent Corporation.

8. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this Court through the relevant annexures appended to the writ petition has contended that the impugned orders have been passed in complete ignorance of the materials available on record and in a mechanical manner without considering the documents and the facts available on record. The Enquiry Officer before giving a finding of guilt did not examine any oral evidence and allowed the petitioner to produce the defence witnesses; he wrongly concluded that Rs.50976 returned to Rita Devi, wife of Late Manoj Mandal through cheque dated 01.10.2011 was for March, 2011, whereas it was for April, 2011. It is further contended that the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is also in the teeth of the order of

8/25 this Court passed in CWJC No. 17137 of 2014, inasmuch as, the respondent authorities failed to consider the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). The orders have been passed without assigning any reasons to differentiate from the discharge of the petitioner in criminal proceeding arising out of the same alleged transaction for which he has been held guilty in disciplinary proceeding. The impugned orders said to be passed in a mechanical manner without any regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without any iota of evidence. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has further taken this Court through the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Service Conduct and Disciplinary Conduct Rule, especially Rule 27 thereof.

It is lastly contended that the impugned order of punishment awarded to the petitioner inter alia forfeiture of all the benefits, except subsistence allowance is also in the teeth of Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance has also been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hrishikesh Tiwrai vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.[CWJC No. 19680 of 2015].

9. To refute the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh with Ms. Shilpi Singh, learned Advocates for the

9/25 BSFC have primarily made a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy of statutory appeal before the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna against the order of punishment. It is further contended that during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the concerned and also sought a report from Mahavir Cancer Sansthan. The written defence statement of the petitioner was also duly considered and after thorough examination, the Enquiry Officer returned the finding of guilt against the petitioner. Charges levelled in prapatra(ka) stood proved based upon which the Managing Director, BSFC inflicted with the punishment as contained in Memo No. 7763 dated 17.07.2014, after giving a proper opportunity of hearing and issuance of second show cause notice to the petitioner. The Court has also been reminded with the scope of judicial review while exercising power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, learned Advocate for the State has also reiterated the afore noted submissions and contended that the impugned orders do not require any interference as the same has been passed in accordance with

10/25 law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner even at the time of enquiry and the order passed by the disciplinary authority as also at the time when the matter was relegated to the disciplinary authority to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra).

11. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record. Before coming to the moot point for consideration regarding legality of the impugned orders, it would be proper for this Court to examine the preliminary objection of the respondent Corporation. The issue of exhausting statutory remedy of appeal has been considered time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of K.S. Rashid And Son vs The IncomeTax Investigation Commission & Ors.[AIR 1954 SC 207] and further in the case of Union Of India vs T. R. Varma [AIR 1957 SC 882] as also in the case of The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86] have held that the Article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts a very extensive power in the matter of issuing writs; which

11/25 power is purely discretionary and no limit can be placed upon the discretion. However, when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of fundamental principle of justice, therefore, in a proper case, power of writ can be exercised, but should not be exercised generally where other adequate legal remedy is available though it may not be, per se a bar to issue a writ of prerogative.

12. In the case of Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors.[(2003) 2 SCC 107], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and the court must consider the pros and cons of the case and then may interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the writ seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act and is challenged. Reliance, in the said case, has also been placed in

12/25 Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors [(1998) 8 SCC 1].

13. In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors.[(2020) 2 SCC 595], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of exercise of writ jurisdiction has held that the exhaustion of alternative remedy; first is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and thus not one of compulsion. The Court further held that the writ jurisdiction forms part of basic structure of the Constitution and that the Court functions in accordance with applicable judicially determined parameters and it has duty not to trespass into the domain of constitutional organs.

14. In the light of the mandate and rullings of the Apex Court it would be evident that the exhaustion of alternative remedy cannot be treated as absolute bar to entertain a writ petition so as to amounts to denudation of the power of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which power can always be exercised in the fact and circumstances of the case.

15. Now coming to the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner was served with the memo of charge in the year 2011, which culminated into punishment and subsequent thereto in

13/25 view of the subsequent development and on account of closure of the criminal case, after having found no evidence, the matter was relegated to the concerned authority afresh and, in the meantime, the petitioner had already been superannuated and now this matter has come up for consideration before this Court. Besides, 15 years spent in the litigation either before the Department or before this Court, the reason for negating the preliminary objection of the Corporation is in limited bound. Relegating the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal would nothing but virtually amounts to sending the petitioner from the Court of Ceaser to ceaser's wife and in fact it would be an empty formality for the simple reason that the Managing Director of the BSFC is the person who has been holding the post of Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar.

16. The reasons, afore noted, in the facts and circumstances of this Court is sufficient enough to reject the contention of the respondent Corporation and thus the matter is being considered on its merits.

17. So far the issue as to whether the discharge on closure of criminal case upon acceptance of the final form due to lack of evidence will have effect on the disciplinary

14/25 proceeding and this ground would be sufficient enough to set aside the punishment order of the petitioner can very well be answered in the settled proposition of law as enunciated by the Apex Court. Well settled it is that the acquittal in a criminal case by self cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge, unless the accused has an Hon'ble acquittal in his criminal trial, based upon the same set of facts, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or for technical reason, the acquittal shall not affect the decision in the disciplinary proceeding and lead to automatic reinstatement.

18. A three-judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Baje Singh (Dead) Through His Legal Heirs vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [(2021) 12 SCC 568] while reiterating the aforesaid settled legal proposition has held in clear terms that mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, acquittal has to be honourable. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case,

15/25 the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.

19. In Karnataka Power Trans. Corp. Ltd. vs Sri C Nagaraju[(2019) 10 SCC 367], the Court while examining the validity of termination of the services of workmen, after acquittal by the criminal court, where acquittal was due to lack of evidence before the criminal court and sufficient evidence was available before the Labour Court, held that the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case cannot come to the rescue of the workmen. Similarly, in the case of Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee [2025 SCC OnLine SC 232], the Court held as follows:

"33. All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority while dealing with the case of the

16/25 respondent.

34. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities."

20. In the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the closure of the criminal case by acceptance of final form due to lack of evidence will have no effect on the disciplinary proceeding, inasmuch as, the acquittal in criminal proceeding can only be taken note of while exercising power of judicial review where charges in departmental enquiry and criminal case are identical, evidence, witness and circumstances are also same and where the Court in exercise of judicial review found that the acquittal in criminal proceeding was after full consideration of prosecution evidence and prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge. In these circumstances, only the court can interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority where findings of the disciplinary authority are found to be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case depends on its own facts. Reference can also be placed on a

17/25 decision rendered in the case of Ram Lal vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2024) 1 SCC 175].

21. Now coming to the question raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner striking the legality of the departmental proceeding culminated into punishment, it would be apt to notice the memorandum of charge and the enquiry report. Suffice it to observe that the memorandum of charge contains the list of three witnesses, including the District Manager, State Food Corporation, Darbhanga, the Assistant Accounts Officer as well as the Head Assistant, State Food Corporation, Darbhanga. The list of documents contains only one letter issued by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga dated 09.06.2011 and another is the report of the District Manager, SFC, Darbhanga as contained in its Memo No. 745 dated 16.07.2011. There is no whisper as to who was appointed as the Conducting Officer and who was authorized to represent the Corporation as Presenting Officer.

22. In the case of State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reminded with the settled proposition that the Enquiry Officer acting as a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a

18/25 representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. Enquiry Officer should not act as a prosecutor as well as judge. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case, on being found no oral evidence has been examined, held the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee.

23. Similarly, in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors [(2009) 2 SCC 570] the Apex Court while emphasizing the duty of the Enquiry Officer has held and observed that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function and thus the charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The

19/25 purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. In that case also the Court on being found that no witness was examined to prove the said documents and the management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof, held that it could not have been treated as an evidence.

24. In the case in hand, the Enquiry Officer while returning the finding of guilt has placed reliance upon the letter of the District Magistrate and the report of the District Manager, SFC, Darbhanga but no witness was examined to prove the said documents or contents thereof. The enquiry report has taken note of various other letters/stock issuance order and the supply register but surprisingly the copies of which are not the part of the list of documents nor it has ever been handed over to the petitioner. There is no whisper with regard to the role of the Presenting Officer. Non appointment of the Presenting Officer is a clear and serious lapse in a departmental proceeding. The Apex Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors [(2001) 1 SCC 182] emphasizing the object of doctrine of natural justice has held that it is not

20/25 only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court observed that 65 pages report submitted by the Conducting Officer where charges against the delinquent stand proved and the lengthy order passed by the disciplinary authority did not find enough to sustain the order of dismissal where the enquiry report was found to be without any basis, who is the person who has produced the same in absence of any Presenting Officer and the notice fixing the date of hearing.

25. It would also be worth noticing, at this stage the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union Of India & Ors vs P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610], wherein the Court while painstakingly enunciating the principle and scope of interference with the disciplinary proceeding has held in clear terms that in disciplinary proceeding the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: "(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

21/25 (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence."

26. In the light of the settled proposition of law when this Court examined the enquiry report, it finds that apart from violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings, the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant extraneous consideration, inasmuch as, the finding of fact is based on no valid evidence. Once the foundation stands demolished, the structure looses its support and lead to collapse.

27. Now coming to the impugned order, this Court is constrained to observe that in no circumstances, it can be said to be a reasoned and speaking order, nonetheless there is no discussion to the show cause explanation filed by the petitioner.

22/25 This Court feels it imperative to quote the relevant part of the order for appreciation of its legality:

ÞJh jkenso ;kno] lgk;d1⁄4fu01⁄2 jkT; [kk| fuxe] njHkaxk ds fo:) xfBr vkjksi i=] vkjksih ls izkIr izFke ,oa f}rh; cpko i=] xokgksa dh xokgh rFkk lapkyu inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr vfnxe ds lE;d leh{kksijkUr Jh ;kno ds fo:) nksuksa vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s x;s gSA vr,o Jh ;kno ds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lekIr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa mUgsa fuyEcu ls eqDr djrs gq, izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, fuEufyf[kr n.M fu/kkZfjr fd, tkrs gSaAß

28. Time without number it has been reminded that the issuance of second show cause is not a mere formality, there must be independent application of mind and consideration of the case shown; the word 'consideration' displays a process of application of mind by noticing and dealing with the relevant facts which includes both pros and cons. The natural justice and its applicability shall depend on facts of each case. It cannot mean only fulfillment of the formality for giving of a show cause notice and acceptance of a reply. The final order must display the application of mind to the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice, the defece taken in reply, followed by at least a brief analysis of the defence supported by reasons why it was not acceptable. The giving of reasons while inflicting major punishment is an absolutely imperative and a facet of the natural justice. A quasi judicial authority is under obligation to record

23/25 reasons in support of its conclusion. Emphasizing the importance of giving reasons, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors [(2010) 9 SCC 496] has held inter alia that insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

29. Now coming to Rule 27 of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Service Conduct and Disciplinary Conduct Rules, there is no iota or confusion that the punishment inflicted to the petitioner is a major one and, therefore, the procedure for dealing with the cases of misconduct as prescribed under Rule 28 ought to be followed. Rule 28(iii) clearly obligates that any order of the competent authority, as authorised under the rules of the Corporation for inflicting major punishment on the delinquent employee, shall be passed after communicating to the employee. The charges along with statement of imputations of misconduct/misbehavior on which they are based along with findings of the Enquiry Officer in writing and the major penalty which is being contemplated against the delinquent employee. Suffice it to

24/25 observe that the afore noted prescription has been given a complete go by.

30. So far the order impugned dated 08.11.2019 is concerned, the same was confined only to the limited issue regarding the discharge of the petitioner from criminal case and its effect on the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding; this issue has already been dealt with thoroughly in the foregoing paragraphs, the same is not required to be repeated. However, it would be suffice to observe that if the original order goes, any subsequent order has no leg to stand.

31. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, in the premise of the settled legal position, this Court is hereby declared and held that the impugned orders as contained in Memo No. 7763 dated 17.07.2014 as also the order dated 08.11.2019 as contained in Anneuxre-P/38 are unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.

32. The writ petition stands allowed.

33. The Corporation is directed to ensure all the consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of his suspension, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

34. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.

25/25

35. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR N.A.

CAV DATE 21.04.2025 Uploading Date 21 .06.2025 Transmission Date N.A.