Manoranjan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13228 of 2012 ====================================================== Manoranjan Prasad Son Of Late Chatarbhuj Roy Resident Of Village Mirapur, P.S. Sakra District Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Dept. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Director, Agriculture Dept. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4.

The Joint Director Agriculture, Agriculture Department Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 5.

The District Agriculture Officer Agriculture Dept. Begusarai, Bihar 6.

The District Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Department Samastipur, Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Manikant Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-02-2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.301 dated 13.02.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 08.07.2010 passed by the respondent No.4 by which the petitioner has been punished by reversion in rank from the post of Accountant to the post of Clerk.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the charge memo it appears that the charge memo is vague and no specific averments made in the charge memo with respect to the financial irregularity and on the vague charge memo,

Patna High Court CWJC No.13228 of 2012 dt.02-02-2024 2/3 although the petitioner has replied to the charge memo but it appears from the enquiry report that the Inquiry Officer has enlarged the scope of the enquiry and inflicted the punishment against the petitioner and the same was confirmed in the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Vikramditya Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2021(2)PLJR618, paragraph-13 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

"13.Enquiry Officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject matter of charges is wholly illegal."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment in the case of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar Vs. B.S.Co-opt. Land Development Bank Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000(3)PLJR 10, paragraph-12 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

"12.Under those rules there are detailed provisions for holding regular departmental enquiry. In holding of a departmental enquiry it is required to prove the charges against the delinquent employee by producing the departmental witnesses and by examining them by the enquiry officer. If the delinquent employee does not attend the enquiry even then the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13228 of 2012 dt.02-02-2024 3/3 department has to prove the charge by examining the witnesses in support of its own documents. In the departmental enquiry no onus is cast upon the delinquent employee to prove the charges. The charges have to be proved by the department. If no witness is called by the department in support of the charges in that case it should be held that the department has not proved its case and in such a situation the enquiry officer cannot record the scrupulous findings with regard to guilt against the delinquent employee just because the delinquent employee is absent."

6. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to revert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In view of the aforesaid, Annexures-1,2 and 3 are set aside and this writ application is allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.02.2024 Transmission Date NA