Patna High CourtCWJC/16943/2023disposed

Vakil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-02Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri17 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16943 of 2023 ====================================================== Vakil Kumar, Son of Kunkun Sahani, Resident of Village- Kopi, P.S. - Dhanaur, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Jail), Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Director General of Police, Prison and Reforms Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

The Deputy Inspector of General, Prison and Reforms Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

The Superintendent, Mandal Jail, Begusarai.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 02-05-2024

1. The Petitioner is a Jail Warder, posted at Begusarai Mandal Correctional Home during the year 2021. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:- "i. To quash the order vide memo no.

1025 dated 02.02.2023 issued by the Assistant Inspector General, Prison and Reforms Services, Govt. of Bihar whereby and whereunder Petitioner has punished with the withholding of four (4) increments of pay with cumulative effect and further ordered that

2/17 Petitioner will not received any amount/allowance except the subsistence allowances in the suspension period.

ii. To quash the order dated 29.05.2023 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the department and communicated vide memo no. 4662 dated 01.06.2023 to the Petitioner whereby ad whereunder the service appeal has been rejected with an order that punishment given by the Additional Inspector General, Prison and Reforms, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar vide memo no. 1025 dated 02.02.2023 shall remain as usual without considering the facts in a mechanical manner without applying his judicious mind.

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing to pay the entire salary of suspension period.

iv. For issuance of any other relief/reliefs for which the Petitioner is entitled in the eye of law."

2. On 15th of December, 2021, the Chief Warder, Divisional Correctional Home, Begusarai, namely, Md. Nasim Khan made a compliant before the Superintendent of the said Correctional Home, stating, inter alia, that on the same date at about 09:00 A.M., he was reported the inmates of the said Correctional Home that the Petitioner had recovered one mobile

3/17 phone from one inmate, namely, Hemant Rai, who was kept in custody in Ward No. 8. It is also informed that the said mobile phone was recovered from the old latrine room situated between the Ward Nos. 5 and 7 by the Petitioner. However, the said mobile phone set was returned to Hemant Rai on consideration of some bribe. Therefore, the Chief Warder, Md. Nasim Khan requested the Additional Superintendent of the said Correctional Home to inquire into the matter and take necessary action.

3. On the basis of the said information, the Superintendent of the said Correctional Home lodged a compliant before the S.H.O, Town Police Station, Begusarai, stating, inter alia, that on 15th of December, 2021 at about 01:00 P.M., a blue coloured Samsung Mobile Phone with Sim-Card was recovered from behind Ward No. 8. The said mobile set was stated to be in possession of a prisoner, namely, Hemant Rai. The mobile set was duly seized and the seizure list was forwarded with the FIR. Though, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station was requested to take legal action over the said matter, no case was registered against anybody over the said incident which was informed by the Superintendent of the Begusarai, Divisional Correctional Home.

4. Subsequently, on 16th of December, 2021, the

4/17 Petitioner was served with a show cause notice wherein it is alleged that on 15th of December, 2011 during his duty hours, he recovered one Samsung Mobile Set with Sim-Card from behind Ward No. 8. The said mobile was under possession of Hemant Rai, a prisoner and the Petitioner returned the said mobile to the above-named prisoner taking bribe of Rs. 1,500/-. The Petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice on 20th of December, 2021, stating, inter alia, that on the date and time of occurrence, he had his duty from 06:00 A.M. to 12:00 (noon) to look after Ward Nos. 9 to 16. One Kamlesh Kumar was on duty to look after Ward Nos. 1 to 8 at the relevant point of time.

It is also stated by him that the Assistant Superintendent, Correctional Home and Chief Warder asked the prisoners of the said prison regarding recovery of the mobile phone but nobody made any allegation against the Petitioner. It is also alleged by him that subsequently Md. Nasim Khan obtained a statement of Hemant Rai under threat and coercion. It is also found from the first reply to the show cause notice that his relation with the Chief Warder of the Correctional Home was inimical and he made a confidential statement against the Chief Warder. Therefore, he was falsely implicated on the allegation of misconduct in performing his official duty at the instance of Md.

5/17 Nasim Khan. The reply to the first show cause notice was not accepted by the authority and the Superintendent of the Divisional Correctional Home, Begusarai vide his letter dated 9th of January, 2022, issued second show cause to the Petitioner, stating, inter alia, that by submitting his reply, he wanted to suppress his misconduct and guilt in discharge of his official duty. The Petitioner duly gave reply on 10th of January, 2022 in writing and denied all the allegations made out in the abovementioned two show cause notices served to him by the authority. Subsequently, charge was framed on two counts against the Petitioner which runs thus:- "(2) दद्वितत्तीय भभाग- अवचभार यभा कदभाचभार कक ललांछननों कभा सभार ददनलांक- 15.12.

6/17 कक बदलक बसंदत्ती कको मकोबभाईल वभापस लझौटिभानक कक मभामलक म कक्षपभाल, शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार कको प्रथम दष्टयभा दकोषत्ती पभायभा गयभा। इनकभा यह कदत्य कभारभा कको दनदषद्ध वस्तकओसं सक मकक्त रखनक कक प्रयभासनों एवसं दबहभार कभारभा हस्तक 2012 कक दनयम 830 (x) 870 (iii) (iv) (xv) (xvii) 876(vii)(ix) कभा घकोर उल्लसंघन हप। सभाथ हत्ती सभाथ कभारभा कत्ती सकरक्षभा व्यवस्थभा कक सभाथ कभारभा कदमर्रयनों कत्ती सकरक्षभा कको भत्ती खतरक म डभालनक वभालभा हप। अधत्तीक्षक मसंडल कभारभा बकगसूसरभाय।

(3) तदतत्तीय भभाग- अवचभार यभा कदभाचभार कक ललांछननों कभा अदभकथन ददनलांक- 15.12.2021 कको कक्षपभाल, शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार कत्ती ड्यकदटि कभारभा कक कक्ष सं0-09 सक 16 पर थत्ती। इनकक द्विभारभा कक्ष सं०- 08 कक बसंदत्ती हकमन्त रभाय, पक०- रभाजककमभार रभाय कक पभास सक एक मकोबभाईल पकडभा गयभा एवसं इस संबसंध म कभारभा कक दकसत्ती भत्ती वरत्तीय पदभादधकभारत्ती कको ककछ भत्ती नहहीं बतभायभा गयभा। उक्त मकोबभाईल कको कक्षपभाल, शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार कक द्विभारभा बसंदत्ती सक समझझौतभा कर पसनों कत्ती लभालच म बसंदत्ती कको मकोबभाईल पकननः वभापस कर ददयभा गयभा। कभारभा म कतर्रव्यरत मकख्य उच्च कक्षपभाल, मको० नसत्तीम खभान कको कभारभा कक अन्य बसंददयनों कक द्विभारभा यह सूचनभा प्रभाप्त हकई दक कक्षपभाल, शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार कक द्विभारभा बसंदत्ती कक पभास सक एक मकोबभाईल जब्त दकयभा गयभा एवसं पकननः बसंदत्ती सक समझझौतभा कर मकोबभाईल कको वभापस कर ददयभा। मकख्य उच्च कक्षपभाल कक द्विभारभा उक्त घटिनभा सक संबसंदधत दलदखत बयभान सहभायक अधत्तीक्षक, शत्ती प्रदत्तीप ककमभार

7/17 दसंह कको ददयभा गयभा (बयभान कत्ती छभायभाप्रदत संलग्न)। उक्त बयभान कक आधभार पर सहभायक अधत्तीक्षक-सहप्रभभारत्ती उपभाधत्तीक्षक, शत्ती प्रदत्तीप ककमभार दसंह कक द्विभारभा बसंदत्ती हकमन्त रभाय, पक०- रभाजककमभार रभाय कको कभायर्यालय म बकलभाकर पसूछ-तभाछ कत्ती गई। पसूछ-तभाछ कक क्रम म बसंदत्ती हकमन्त रभाय, पक०- रभाज ककमभार रभाय कक द्विभारभा बतभायभा गयभा दक ददनलांक- 15.12.

8/17 दकयक गयक मकोबभाईल एवसं दसम कको लककर कभारभा कक पतलांक- 7215 ददनलांक- 16.12.2021 कक द्विभारभा अदभयकक्त हकमन्त रभाय, पक०- रभाजककमभार रभाय पर प्रभाथदमकत्ती दजर्र करभाई गई हप (छभायभाप्रदत संलग्न)। प्रभभारत्ती उपभाधत्तीक्षक कक जहाँच प्रदतवकदन एवसं बसंददयनों कक बयभान पर कक्षपभाल शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार सक इस कभारभा कक जभापलांक- 7214 ददनलांक- 16.12.2021 कक द्विभारभा 24 घसंटिक कक असंदर स्पष्टत्तीकरण कत्ती ममॉग कत्ती गई (स्पष्टत्तीकरण कत्ती छभायभाप्रदत संलग्न)। उक्त स्पष्टत्तीकरण कभा जवभाब कक्षपभाल शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार कक द्विभारभा ददनलांक- 20.12.

9/17 कर रहक हप। स्पष्टत्तीकरण स्वत्तीकभार यकोग्य नहहीं हकोनक पर पकननः इस कभारभा कक जभापलांक - 92 ददनलांक09.01.

5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that in the departmental proceeding, the Enquiry

10/17 Officer did not follow the basic requirements of natural justice and minimum rules of conducting departmental proceeding. It is next submitted by him that the charge against the Petitioner was framed on the basis of the statement of some prisoners, namely, Hiraganj Yadav, Jatashankar Yadav and Mannu Kumar. The said witnesses were not examined during departmental inquiry and, therefore, the Petitioner did not get any scope to cross-examine the said witnesses.

6. Moreover, the prisoner, Hemant Rai was also not examined. The Petitioner was not provided with the chance of cross-examination of the said witnesses. The disciplinary authority relied on the statement of Hemant Rai which he made at the time of initial inquiry before the Additional Superintendent of Prisons. The Enquiry Officer found that the Petitioner did not examine Md. Nasim Khan in spite of repeated request by the Enquiry Officer. However, he is absolutely silent with regard to cross-examination of the material witnesses like Hemant Rai and other prisoners during disciplinary proceeding by the Petitioner. No opportunity was granted to him to crossexamine them. Ultimately, on the basis of the inquiry report, disciplinary proceeding was concluded and he was punished with directing stoppage of four increments. It is also directed

11/17 that he would not be entitled any amount more than subsistence allowance which he received during suspension.

7. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that detailed procedure of departmental inquiry and imposing penalties is enumerated in Rule 17 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bihar CCA Rules, 2005'). The Enquiry Officer failed to conduct the departmental inquiry in terms of Rule 17 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Rules 17(14), which states as follows:- "17(14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to reexamine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses, as it thinks fit."

8. According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioner failure on the part of the presenting officer to produce

12/17 the witnesses before the disciplinary authority goes to the root of the authenticity of the disciplinary proceeding because of the fact the Petitioner did not get any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

9. It is also submitted by him that impugned order was not passed following Sub-Rule 23(i) of Rule 17 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Thus, entire disciplinary proceeding as well as the finding of the authority is liable to be quashed.

10. Learned Advocate on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that the inquiry held by the appropriate authority is in accordance with law. The Petitioner was given adequate opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses.

11. On due consideration of the evidence as well as statement of the imputation of charge and reply made by the Petitioner on show cause notice, the Superintendent of Bihar Kendriya Kara, Bhagalpur and the Conducting Officer, departmental proceeding held as hereinbelow:- उपभाधत्तीक्षक कक बयभान और पसूछ-तभाछ सक भत्ती यह स्पष्ट हकोतभा हप। पकननः बसंदत्ती हकमन्त रभाय हत्तीरभागज यभादव, जयशसंकर यभादव, मनसू ककमभार कक बयभाननों म स्पष्ट कहभा गयभा हप दक कक्षपभाल शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार बसंदत्ती हकमन्त रभाय सक 1500/- र० दकनक कत्ती बभात पर सभामझझौतभा करतक हकए बसंदत्ती हकमन्त ककमभार कको मकोबभाईल वभापस कर ददयभा जको बसंदत्ती कक सभाथ कक्षपभाल कक ससठ-

13/17 गहाँठ कको प्रकटि करतभा हप। शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार कभा यह कहनभा दक बसंदत्ती कक्ष संख्यभा-08 कभा थभा और मकरत्ती दडयसूटित्ती कक्ष संख्यभा-09-16 म थभा, स्वत्तीकभार यकोग्य नहहीं हप। इस संबसंध म गवभाहनों एवसं प्रस्तकदतकरण पदभादधकभारत्ती द्विभारभा बसंदत्ती कक बयभाननों कक अलभावक ककोई अन्य सभाक्ष्य प्रस्तकत नहहीं दकयभा गयभा दजससक दसद्ध हको दक मकोबभाईल कक बदलक आरकोदपत कमर्मी नक पसक कभा सझौदभा दकयभा। पकननः मकख्य उच्च कक्षपभाल नक अपनक दलदखत बयभान म यह सभाफ दलखभा हप दक कक्षपभाल नक इस तरह कत्ती घटिनभा सक इसंकभार दकयभा एवसं बसंदत्ती हकमसंत रभाय नक बतभानक सक इसंकभार दकयभा। पसूछ-तभाछ म मकख्य उच्च कक्षपभाल नक स्वत्तीकभार दकयभा दक हकमसंत रभाय नक ऐसत्ती घटिनभा सक इसंकभार दकयभा लकदकन प्रभभारत्ती उपभाधत्तीक्षक कक बयभान, जहाँच कक अवलकोकन व पसूछ-तभाछ सक स्पष्ट हकोतभा हप दक ऐसत्ती घटिनभा घदटित हकई। आरकोदपत कमर्मी नक अपनक बचभाव म ककोई ठकोस बचभाव समदपर्रत नहहीं दकयभा। बदल्क घदटित घटिनभा कको दसूसरक तरफ मकोडनक कक दलए दवदभन प्रकभार कक आरकोप लगभायभा दजसकभा इस घटिनभा सक ककोई संबसंध नहहीं हप। घदटित घटिनभा कक संबसंध म दसफर्र एक हत्ती बचभाव प्रस्तकत दकयभा गयभानः दक बसंदत्ती हकमसंत रभाय मकरक क्षकतभादधकभार म नहहीं थभा, यह मभान्य नहहीं हप। अतनः कक्षपभाल शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार पर लगभायभा गयभा आरकोप दसद्ध हकोतभा हप। दनष्कषर्र :- शत्ती वकत्तील ककमभार, दनलसंदबत कक्षपभाल कक उपर गदठत आरकोप प्रमभादणत हकोतभा हप।

12. Learned Advocate for the State also refers to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of

14/17 India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in disciplinary proceeding, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second Court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:- (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

15/17 (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence."

13. In the instant case, it is found, indisputably, that the star witnesses on behalf of the enquiry authority where the prisoners on the basis of whose statement, the Chief Warder initially found that the Petitioner allegedly took a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in return of a mobile set. During departmental inquiry, the said witnesses were not produced. It was the duty of the presenting officer to produce the said witnesses and on production, he could have relied on the statement made by the said witnesses giving liberty to cross-examine them by the delinquent employee or his representative. The said procedure has not been followed and uncontroverted statement of the prisoners were accepted without assigning any reason.

14. Thus, this Court is of the view that the principle of natural justice was violated by the disciplinary authority. The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair consideration without giving opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses.

15. Last but not the least, the Chief Warder of the Correctional Home submitted the FIR mentioning the colour of

16/17 the mobile phone as blue but the mobile phone which was subsequently seized from Hemant Rai was made by Samsung Company having black and white colour. Thus, material testimony i.e., mobile set which was allegedly recovered from prisoner, Hemant Rai was not produced before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer did not consider the said fact also.

16. In view of such circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the report of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority is liable to be set aside and accordingly the impugned report of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are set aside.

17. The disciplinary authority is directed to direct the inquiry officer to conduct the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner following the principles laid down in Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, especially Rule 17 (14) and 17 (23) (i) thereof and give opportunity to the delinquent employee / Petitioner to cross-examine all the witnesses whose evidence was relied upon by the presenting officer and the inquiry authority to prove the charge levelled against the Petitioner.

18. Entire process shall be concluded within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy this order to the inquiry officer or any other officer appointed by

17/17 the disciplinary authority.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) uttam/- U