The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Nand Kumar Rana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14003 of 2001 ======================================================

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar.

3. The Joint Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

Nand Kumar Rana, Son of Late Banarsi Rana, Resident of Village Bhatolia, Police Station Ninapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Amarendra Kumar, A.C. to AAG-15 For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 13-11-2017 Delay of 213 days in filing of this appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 3288 of 2016 stands allowed and disposed of.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants we find that taking note of the fact that the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to five charges which were found not to be proved, the learned Writ Court has remanded the matter back to take action in terms of Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code.

We have gone through the order of disagreement

Patna High Court LPA No.836 of 2016 dt.13-11-2017 2/3 (Annexure-10) and we find that except for reproducing the charges in a very casual manner the finding of the Inquiry Officer are not referred to. The reasons for differing with the Inquiry Officer's report and the material on the basis of which the disagreement is recorded are also not indicated in the notice issued vide Annexure-10.

That being so, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court. If the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority is required to refer to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the evidence that came on record and after analyzing the same has to give reasons as to why he proposes to differ from the finding of the Inquiry Officer and what are the material based on which he proposes to do so. All these exercise having not been done, as is apparent from Annexure-10, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court warranting reconsideration, more so when liberty has been granted to the department to proceed in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code.

Accordingly, finding no ground, the appeal stands dismissed. If advised and if permissible under law the respondents are free to proceed with the inquiry from the stage

Patna High Court LPA No.836 of 2016 dt.13-11-2017 3/3 of receipt of the Inquiry Report.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 16.11.2017 Transmission Date