Ram Shankar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.701 of 2021 ====================================================== Ram Shankar Jha, aged about 61 years, male, Son of Sri Bhola Jha Resident of Bangrahatta, Police Station- Singhiya, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Labour Commissioner Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Joint Labour Commissioner Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Satish Chandra Jha 3, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Raghwendra Kumar SC-22.

with Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh AC to SC-22.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 08-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

2. While working as Block Development Officer ('BDO' for brevity) Ratni Faridpur, in the District-Jehanabad, the petitioner was proceeded against for four charges, as contained in communication dated 25-05-2011, from office of District

2/9 Magistrate, Jehanabad, enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The four charges were as follows:- "1- ववितत्तीय विर्ष 2010-11 में विवतननावदि मदि में उपलब्ध करनायव गयव आविवटन में सव वदिननांक 31.03.2011 कक 3,38,691.00 रूपयव आपकव दनारना प्रत्यनावपर्षत कर वदियना गयना,जबवक इस रनावशि में सव M.J.C. No. - 2944/2009 रनाम नगत्तीनना वसवह बननाम् रनाज्य एविव अन्य मनामलव में रनावशि भुगतनान कर तथ्य वविविरणत्ती तयनार करनना चनावहए थना तथ्य वविविरणत्ती तयनार करनव कव वलए दिबनाब वदियव जनानव पर आपनव पतनांक 367 वदिननांक 11.04.

4. प्रखण्ड वविकनास पदिनावधकनारत्ती, रतनत्ती फरत्तीदिपभुर कव रूप में आज वदिननांक 24.05.2011 कव 10:30 बजव पूविर्वाह्न तक इनकव सनामनान्य रककडपवजत्ती वदिननांक 18.02.2011 तक हत्ती वलखना पनायना गयना। उप वविकनास आयभुक्त, जहनाननाबनादि कना वतवथ एविव समय अववकत करतव हभुए उक्त वतवथ कत्ती रककड पवजत्ती पर हस्तनाक्षर अववकत हत। यह घकर ववितत्तीय अवनयवमततना हत। इस लनापरविनाहत्ती सव गबन कत्ती घटनना घवटत हक सकतत्ती हत। ववितत्तीय विर्ष 2010-11

3/9 बत्तीतव हभुए लगभग दिक मनाह हक चभुकव हैं वफर भत्ती रककड पवजत्ती कक

31. 03.2011 तक सवधनावरत नहहीं वकयना गयना हत। "

3. The petitioner had surrendered an amount of Rs. 3,38,691/- instead of utilizing the said funds for payment of dues to one Nagina Ram Singh, in compliance of certain orders passed by the High Court in his writ proceedings. The second charge was that he hand handed over the certificate of being elected, to one candidate in the Panchayat Election of 2011 which was based on a wrong assessment of the votes cast in her favour leading to a wrong declaration of victory in favour of the said person. The third charge was that the petitioner was not residing at his headquarters (Ratni Faridpur) he was staying at Jehanabad and using the official vehicle for coming to and fro everyday. This was stated to be a misuse of the vehicle and fuel. The fourth charge was that when the office was inspected on 24.05.2011, at 10.

30, the general cash book was found to be having entry only up to 18-02-2011. The fact that entries had not been made for more than last two months has been made the basis of allegation that such situation is likely to facilitate misappropriation of funds. The petitioner submitted his response, whereafter, the enquiry was conducted. The charge Nos.

4/9 charge no.3 and rejecting the charge No.4, based on the petitioner's response. In spite of such finding being returned by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 13.5.2014, dismissed the petitioner from service. The order of dismissal was upheld by the Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, under order dated 28.08.2014. Both these orders were assailed by the petitioner in CWJC No. 17579 of 2014. The writ petition was allowed. The order of the dismissal and the Appellate order were quashed. The Disciplinary Authority was, however, given liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of Enquiry Report, but in accordance with law. Availing such liberty, the petitioner has been served with a second show cause dated 23.11.2016.

The petitioner has responded to the second show cause, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. Certain clarifications, thereafter, were requisitioned from the petitioner, which has been submitted by the petitioner on 20-04-2017. Considering the petitioner's response to second show cause and clarifications, the Disciplinary Authority has found the petitioner guilty of charge Nos. 1 and 2. With respect to charge nos. 3 and 4, there is no finding in the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 08-06-2017,, bearing Memo No.

5/9 3194. Upon such finding, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the following punishment:- "(i) शत्ती रनामशिवकर झना कक विकहत शिनावस्तययों कव वनयम14 कव खण्ड-vii कव तहत ननमनतर प्रक्रम पर अविनत वकयना जनातना हत। (ii) शत्ती झना कत्ती आगव कत्ती सभत्ती प्रकनार विनावर्षक विवतन विकवद्धिययाँ एविव प्रकन्नवत अविरूद्धि रहवगत्ती। (iii) शत्ती झना कक उनकव वनलवबन अविवध (वदिननांक 06.02.2014 सव वदिननांक- तक) में जत्तीविन वनविर्वाह भतना (Subsistence Allowance) कव अवतवरक्त कभुछ भत्ती दिवय नहहीं हकगना, परवतभु उनकत्ती वनलवबन अविवध सवविना में टपूट नहहीं मनानत्ती जनायवगत्ती। (iv) चपूचूँवक शत्ती झना बखर्वास्तगत्ती अविवध में कनायर्ष पर नहहीं रहव हैं. फलत: No Work No Pay कना वसद्धिनांत लनागपू हकगना। "

4. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order. The Appellate Authority has modified the order of punishment. The modified punishment, as per order of the Appellate Authority, dated 14.9.2017, which reads as follows:- "(i) शत्ती झना कत्ती दिक विनावर्षक विवतनविकवद्धि पर सवचयनात्मक प्रभनावि सव अविरूद्धि कत्ती जनातत्ती हत। (ii)शत्ती झना कक पूविर्ष में ननमनतम प्रक्रम पर अविनत करनव एविव आगव कत्ती सभत्ती प्रकनार कत्ती विनावर्षक विवतन विकवद्धि एविव प्रकन्नवत अविरुद्धि रहनव कव दिण्ड कक वनरस्त वकयना जनातना हत। (iii) शत्ती झना कत्ती वनलवबन अविवध तथना बखर्वास्तगत्ती अविवध में भुगतनान कव सवबवध में पूविर्ष में वदियना गयना आदिवशि यथनावित रहवगना।"

5. Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Disciplinary Authority has once again committed the same error, which led to quashing of the earlier order of punishment against the petitioner. While purporting

6/9 to issue a second show cause contained a points of distinction, the Disciplinary Authority, in fact, has failed to observe the procedural requirement, as contained in Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for brevity ' the CCA Rules, 2005). The Authority has not recorded any finding based on any material adduced in the course of enquiry so as to sustain his difference with finding of the Enquiry Officer. The second show cause issued by by the Disciplinary Authority does not refer to any evidence much less evidence sufficient on record, as per requirement under Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

The second show cause is apparently presumptuous and based on surmises on a general perception that the petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibilities by virtue of being the head of the office. The petitioner has clearly submitted his response with respect to his first two charges in detail specifying the circumstances in which the funds were returned being insufficient to satisfy the requirement of said Ram Nagina Singh and how the petitioner had sought release of funds for ensuring full payment. These facts have not been denied or disputed. Nothing has been placed in the Enquiry to sustain the charges. There is no examination of any witness or consideration of material whatsoever.

7/9 concerned, the Enquiry Report does not disbelieve the explanation offered by the petitioner in Enquiry. It also does not rely upon any evidence or material to hold these two charges proved. The Eqnuiry Officer has merely recorded in the Enquiry Report that these two charges are "partially proved". The feeble notings in this regard is also ambiguous. What part of the charge has been proved and on what basis is not available on record. There is also no basis for differing with this finding by the Disciplinary Authority. There is no compliance with Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005 in this regard. The second show cause, therefore, does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 18(2) of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005. The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 08-06-2017 is also based on presumptions and suspicion. With respect to Charge No.

1 regarding non payment of dues to Ram Nagina Singh, the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, reads as follows:- "आपकव पनास रू०. 4,94,432/- कना आविवटन थना तक आपकव दनारना कभुवटल मवशिना कव तहत हत्ती, शत्ती वसवह कव लववबत बडव रनावशि रू0 4,86,418/- कना भुगतनान न कर छकटव रनावशि रू0 1,55,741/- कना भुगतनान वकयना गयना जक गलत कनारविनाई थत्ती । जहनां तक भुगतनान हवतभु आविवटन कत्ती अनभुपलब्धतना कत्ती बनात थत्ती तक आविवटन प्रनाप्त करनव हवतभु आपकव स्तर सव सनाथर्षक प्रयनास नहहीं वकयना गयना और अकनारण हत्ती उस ववितत्तीय विर्ष में शिवर बचत्ती रनावशि रू0 3,38,691.

8/9 हभुई हत और फलतनः एक गरत्तीब अनभुसवविक कत्ती लववबत रनावशि कना भुगतनान भत्ती उस ववितत्तीय विर्ष में नहहीं हक सकना।

2. पवचनायत वनविर्वाचन, 2011 कनाकक प्रखण्ड कव वलए आपकक वनविर्वाचन पदिनावधकनारत्ती बननायना गयना थना। पवचनायत पूविर्वी कनाकक कव मतगणनना कव दिदौरनान मतगणनना ट्यपूल सव प्रनाप्त पवरणनाम कना सूकमता सेनमलान एवं नवशलेषणनहहीं वकयना गयना और आनन- फनानन में चभुननावि पवरणनाम घकवरत कर वदियना गयना । "

6. Apparently, the finding is not based on any evidence regarding any misconduct on behalf of the petitioner, and is presumptuous. Insofar as the finding in respect of charge no.2 is concerned, the Disciplinary Authority has recorded "......इस प्रकनार पयर्षविवक्षक कक कनारविनाई भत्ती सवदिवहनास्पदि हैं। "

7. These findings have been manifestly recorded on mere suspicion. It is settled law that suspicion cannot take the place of truth and in view of the detailed Enquiry which has preceded the order of dismissal the findings were required to be recorded with reference to the same material in the course of Enquiry. This having not been done, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, as contained in the impugned order dated 08-06-2017, are clearly unsustainable. The same suffers from fatal procedural lapse. The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 08-06-2017, is therefore, quashed. The Appellate Authority's order

9/9 of affirmation of this illegal order, therefore, must also collapse. The order dated 14.09.2017 is also quashed.

8. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24-12-2022 Transmission Date