Narendra Prasad Sinha vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1266 of 2006 dated 26th July, 2013 whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

"� This appellant is an original petitioner, who has appointed as Clerk in the Civil Court, District Gumla on 28th October, 1997.

� The District and Sessions Judge, Gumla directed the Judge Incharge (Administration), Civil Court, Gumla on 25th September, 2003 to conduct inquiry into the incident in which a phone call was made to the District and Sessions Judge at about 8.13 a.m. on 25th September, 2003 by someone, impersonating himself as Zonal Judge and directing him to transfer one Sri Bipin Kumar from the office of Registrar. There was also other details which were about the incident about the telephone number from which the call was made to the District and Sessions Judge. This was also mentioned in the confidential letter No. 33 dated 25th September, 2003.

� A report was submitted to the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla on 26th September, 2003 stating that a civil court employee namely Narendra Prasad Sinha had made the said telephone call at the residence of the District and Sessions Judge.

� The Judge Incharge had summoned the said employee, who is the 7 original petitioner and appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal and when he asked him about such misconduct, this appellant (original petitioner) admitted his guilt and tendered apology.

� This appellant (original petitioner) had tendered a written apology dated 25th September, 2003 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1266 of 2006 admitting his guilt.

� A show cause was given to the petitioner on 20th November, 2003 by the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla for giving a reply as to why a disciplinary action for misconduct, indiscipline and insubordination be not initiated against him. The details of the charges were also furnished to the petitioner.

� This appellant (original petitioner) submitted his reply on 24th November, 2003 in which it was stated by him that he was in an unstable mental condition and therefore, he had made such a caii the residence of the District and Sessions Judge and has admitted his guilt.

� Considering the reply filed by this Appellant (original petitioner) (sic) was ordered to dispense with further inquiry as contemplated under Rule 166 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules.

� This appellant (original petitioner) was held guilty of the misconduct and therefore, it was ordered to issue a second show cause notice to the original petitioner.

� On 25th November, 2003, a second show cause notice was issued to the appellant (original petitioner) to show cause to the proposed punishment of removal from service.

� This appellant (original petitioner) submitted his reply on 29th November, 2003 and the order of punishment was passed on 1st December, 2003 removing this appellant (original petitioner) from services.

� Departmental appeal preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) was also dismissed vide order dated 26th February, 2005.

� Against the order dated 26th February, 2005, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1266 of 2006 was instituted by this appellant which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26th July, 2013."

Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.

Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant.

"� No departmental inquiry has been initiated by the respondents and hence, the order of dismissal deserves to be dismissed.

� There is a violation of principles of natural justice.

� One cannot be a judge of his own cause. The Inquiry Officer cannot conduct inquiry because he was a party to the whole incident.

� Petitioner was not a probationer as he was working since last six years.

� Counsel for the appellant is relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. The State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh), as well as the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and Others, and has submitted that the aforesaid grounds have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed by quashing the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26th July, 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 1266 of 2006."

Argument canvassed by the counsel for the respondents.

"� This appellant (original petitioner) had made a phone call on 25* September, 2003 at about 8.13 a.m. impersonating himself as a Zonal Judge. This phone call was made to the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla and this appellant had directed the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla to transfer one Sri Bipin Kumar from the office of the Registrar.

� It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this appellant (original petitioner) had tendered written apology admitting his guilt vide his letter dated 25th September, 2003, which is at Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

� A show cause notice was given to this appellant. Thereafter, again this appellant (original petitioner) had admitted his guilt.

� The order was passed to dispense with the further inquiry contemplated under Rule 166 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules, because this appellant had admitted his guilt. This decision was never challenged by this appellant before any forum.

� Thereafter, as the charges of misconduct, indiscipline and insubordination was proved, second show cause notice was also given and it was replied by this appellant in which also, he had admitted his guilt and, therefore, ultimately his services were terminated. Thus, adequate opportunity of being heard was given to this appellant and there is no procedural lacuna.

� This appellant (original petitioner) was a probationer and during the period of his probation, he has committed the aforesaid admitted misconduct.

� As this appellant (original petitioner) admitted his guilt on more than one occasion, no prejudice is caused due to non-inquiry.

� Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions which are cited in the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge and he further submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court."

Reasons:

Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) was appointed as a Clerk in the Civil Court at District-Gumla on 28th October, 1997. He was on probation and during this period, on 25th September, 2003, a phone call was made by him at about 8.13 a.m. to the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla impersonating himself as a Zonal Judge. This appellant gave direction to the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla to transfer one Sri Bipin Kumar from the office of the Registrar. Inquiry was conducted and this appellant has admitted his guilt vide his letter dated 25th September, 2003, which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1266 of 2006. Thereafter, charges were framed and the show cause notice was issued to the appellant (original petitioner). He replied on 24th November, 2003 stating that he was in an unstable mental condition, therefore, he had made such a call to the residence of the District and Sessions Judge. Thereafter, looking to the admission of the guilt on the part of this appellant, it was ordered to dispense with the further inquiry as contemplated under Rule 166 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules. This decision was never challenged by the appellant at the relevant time.

As the misconduct is proved, a second show cause notice was given to this appellant (original petitioner) on 25th November, 2003. It was replied to by this appellant on 29th November, 2003 and he was removed from the service on 1st December, 2003. Thereafter, departmental appeal was also preferred by this appellant which was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 26th February, 2005. Thus, there is no procedural lacuna on the part of the respondents in issuance of charge-sheet, holding of inquiry and in terminating the services of this appellant.

When the appellant has admitted his guilt, there is no need of holding any departmental inquiry because no fruitful purpose will be served and it would have been an empty formality as stated in the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred in paragraph-19 of the decision reported in Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee, and in several other catena of decisions.

Moreover, the original petitioner was a probationer and during the period of his probation, he has committed the aforesaid misconduct.

The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in deciding the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1266 of 2006 vide order dated 26th July, 2013. At length, all the points canvassed by the counsel for the respondents have been dealt with from paragraph-10 onwards upto paragraph-22 and we are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition, supported by several decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. We are not repeating those decisions to be cited over here.

There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.