Raksha Ram @ Ram Raksha Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6994 of 2014 =========================================================== Raksha Ram @ Ram Raksha Ram, Son of Late Shinga Ram, Resident of Village - Dhobawaliyam, P.S. Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj

3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Commissionary, Chapra

4. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj

5. The District Programme Officer (Estab.), Gopalganj

6. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur

7. The Block Education Officer, Gopalganj .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Ac to SC-21 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31-10-2018 The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29.05.2012 by which the petitioner was inflicted major punishment without following the due procedure prescribed by law and also for quashing the appellate order dated 24.08.2013 passed by the R.D.D.E., Saran.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was inflicted major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005

2/5 such punishment is categorized as major punishment. He further submits that only formality as to enquiry was completed in the instant case. He has invited the attention of this Court to the enquiry report contained in Annexure-5.

3. From perusal of Annexure-5, no reasonable man can approve Annexure-5, as an enquiry report, which records the finding as to the guilt of the petitioner. Annexure-5 is quoted herein below for ready reference:

( ) ( ) ( ) (BRC)

3/5 ( ) ( ) ( )

4/5

4. Thus from perusal of Annexure-5, it further appears that there is no finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer to the contrary he has simply forwarded the explanation of the petitioner and recommended for withdrawal of order of suspension of the petitioner and on the basis of that Annexure-5, the order inflicting major punishment was passed, which was upheld by the appellate authority.

5. In view of the fact that there was no finding of guilt against the petitioner by the enquiry officer, the order inflicting major punishment by the disciplinary authority contained in Annexure-6 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, as such it cannot sustain. The order of the appellate authority also suffers from the same vice of lack of application of mind and, as such, the order contained in Annexure-7 is also illegal and unsustainable in law.

6. Accordingly, Annexures- 6 and 7 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore all the benefits to the

5/5 petitioner, as if Annexures-6 and 7 never existed. Necessary order for grant of consequential benefits on quashing of Annexures- 6 and 7 may be passed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands allowed and disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.11.2018 Transmission Date