Md. Hassan Ansari vs The State of Bihar and Others

Navin Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.10.1998 by which he has been visited with certain punishments subsequent to his retirement in a departmental proceeding stated to have been initiated prior to his superannuation. This would include recovery of certain sums of money which disappeared while the petitioner was bringing the same from the Bank in a bus.

The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as also a criminal prosecution. Having been convicted by the criminal court in a Revision application preferred by the petitioner before this Court he was acquitted. Apart from the aforesaid learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to raise certain other issues with regard to the conduct of the departmental proceeding etc. which this Court presently does not consider necessary to deal with.

It is settled law that in a departmental proceeding before a punishment can be imposed a finding of guilt would have to be arrived at. Imposition of punishment without a finding of guilt would be an inherent contradiction. The impugned order at Annexure 5 would per se demonstrate that the prosecution representatives failed to appear and lead evidence before the Enquiry Officer who therefore had no material to arrive at a conclusive finding with regard to the petitioner even on the basis of probabilities. This Court upon reading of the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order at Annexure 5, is satisfied that it does not bear any finding of guilt against the petitioner. In that view of the matter the impugned order is not sustainable, it is accordingly quashed. Reliance for the purpose may be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Bihar and Ors. v. Lakshmi Shankar Prasad reported in, (2003) 3 LLJ 225SC .

Any deduction made from the superannuation benefits of the petitioner shall be repaid to him within a period of four weeks from today with interest @ 9%. The petitioner would also be entitled to full wages for the period of suspension less the subsistence allowance if any paid to him which would carry interest at the like rate. This would be without prejudice of the rights of the State in the Money Suit stated to have been filed against the petitioner. The writ application accordingly stands allowed.