Harish Chandra Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9455 of 2014 =========================================================== Harish Chandra Choudhary Son of Late Ram Naresh Choudhary Resident of Flat No.302, Veenashree Apartment, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, advocate For the Respondents : SMT.NIVEDITA NIRVIKAR, GA 10 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-03-2016 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in memo no. 503 dated 4.4.2014, issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Directorate of Primary Education dismissing him from service in terms of CCA Rules, 2005. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- In the year 2007, petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Nalanda. He was trapped on 14.3.2007 accepting bribe of Rs.16,000/- from one Lalan Mandal giving rise to Patna Vigilance case no. 36 of 2007, dated 14.3.2007 as well as initiation of departmental proceeding.

On conclusion of departmental proceeding, the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceeding as well as the dismissal order on different grounds.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9455 of 2014 dt.08-03-2016 In my view, this case can be disposed of on the limited issue that the 2nd show cause notice, dated 14.2.2014 issued under the signature of the Director, Primary Education is in teeth of the decision, reported in 2006(9) SCC 440 (Lav Ligam Vs. the Chairman, ITI and another).

In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex court observed that the disciplinary authority may or may not accept the view of the enquiry officer but in case the disciplinary authority does not agree with the view of the enquiry officer, the former would have to give his tentative reasons for such disagreement while issuing 2nd show cause notice. In the instant case, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of the guilt. However, the disciplinary authority did not accept the view of the enquiry officer and issued 2nd show cause seeking petitioner's response without stating tentative reasons for such disagreement. The disciplinary authority ought to have recorded some reasons for disagreeing with the view of the enquiry officer.

In this view of the matter, the 2nd show cause notice is not sustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the impugned punishment based on such notice is also set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of 2nd show cause.

Shashi.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) U