AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs :-
“(I)For quashing of the order passed by the Learned Court of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga in Service Appeal No. 22 of 2023 (Prabhakar Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar and Others) vide order dated 21.12.2024, whereby and where under the service appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission itself as it does not seem appropriate to the Learned Court of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga to consider the plea of the petitioner until the petitioner is acquitted by the Learned Vigilance Court. Also, the Learned Court of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga did not find it appropriate to interfere as the authority founded that there was no error of any kind in order in question passed by the District Magistrate, Samastipur dated 27.11.2023 was found to be legal and appropriate.
It is stated that the unreasoned order was passed without application of judicial mind and without giving due consideration to the direction passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 14769 of 2024 (Prabhakar Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar and Others) vide order dated 26.09.2024.
A certified copy of the order dated 21.12.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/1 along with this present writ petition.
(II)For quashing of the order passed by the Learned District Magistrate, Samastipur, contained in Memo No. 1419 dated 27.11.2023, whereby and where under the petitioner has been dismissed from his service in a most arbitrary manner and against the provision of law. It is stated that no second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and without supplying the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner in complete violation of the provisions contained in the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 has been dismissed from service and on this score, the writ petition is fit to be allowed.
A photocopy of the order contained in Memo No. 1419 dated 27.11.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/2 along with this present writ petition.
(III)For quashing of the charge-sheet (Prapatra-K) dated 14.12.2019, by which the charge has been framed against the petitioner relating to allegation of having trapped the petitioner on 18.04.2019 and having caught him red-handed taking a sum of Rs. 8000/- relating to the Vigilance Case No. 017 of 2019 while the petitioner was not incharge of Nazir of Circle Officer, Sarairanjan, Samastipur.
It is stated that the petitioner was incharge of Nazir only for the period of 01.07.2017 to 07.12.2018 and not on the date of the incident.
A photocopy of the extract charge sheet (Prapartra-K) dated 14.12.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/3 along with this present writ petition.
(IV)For quashing of the second enquiry report, contained in Memo No 2365 dated 31.08.2023 issued under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur -cum-Enquiry officer, who has found the charges proved against the petitioner without taking any further evidence or giving any opportunity to the petitioner, submitted the second enquiry report, on the same evidence, which has come in earlier enquiry report submitted by the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur -cum-Enquiry officer who have founded charges against the petitioner not proved, contained in Memo No. 2264 dated 24.09.2020.
A photocopy of the order contained in Memo No. 2365 dated 31.08.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/4 along with this present writ petition.
(V)For reinstatement of the petitioner on his post with all consequential benefit from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement for the reason that after the passing of the order of dismissal, the petitioner is not employed gainfully anywhere and since then the petitioner is sitting idle.
(VI)For any other writ, direction, order, rule, and grant relief/reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court find the petitioner fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as a Clerk on 16.8.1990. He was falsely implicated in a trap case on 18.4.2019 which lead to registration of Vigilance P.S. Case no.17 of 2019 under section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was taken into custody.
Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension, ordered to be paid subsistence allowance and a departmental proceeding started against him with the memo of charge being served on 14.12.2019. The charge against the petitioner was that he had been caught red handed by the raiding team of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna taking a bribe of Rs.8,000/- on 18.4.2019 and which lead to the registration of an F.I.R.
The petitioner submitted his reply on 22.9.2020 and the enquiry proceeded with submission of the enquiry report on 17.9.2021.
It is the case of the petitioner that on repeated communications being sent by the respondent authorities including the District Magistrate, another Sub-Divisional Officer wrote a letter dated 31.8.2023 to the District Magistrate, Samastipur that so far as the charges against the petitioner are concerned, the same were proved in the enquiry conducted.
Thereafter, the respondents came out with an order of punishment dated 27.11.2023 under the signature of the Collector –cum– District Magistrate, Samastipur dismissing the petitioner from service.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.12.2024 passed in Service Appeal no.22 of 2023 by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. It is against the order of dismissal, the rejection of appeal as also the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet in the second enquiry report dated 31.8.2023 that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to the memo of charge contained in Annexure-3 that the same does not contain the list of witnesses. Further referring to the enquiry report (Annexure-18) it is submitted that there is no reference to any witness having been examined in course of enquiry nor any document was proved in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Neither the copy of the enquiry report was provided to the petitioner nor was the petitioner given any second show-cause notice to respond to the contents of the enquiry report before passing the order of punishment. Further referring to the contents of the enquiry report dated 21.9.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contrary to the conclusion arrived at by another Sub-Divisional Officer in his letter dated 31.8.2023 addressed to the District Magistrate, the first Sub-Divisional Officer (Conducting Officer) in the enquiry report was of the opinion that the petitioner already having handed over the charge of Nazarat six months prior, there was no occasion for the complainant Ravindra Kumar Sah to come in contact with the petitioner. It is thus submitted that contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the second Sub-Divisional Officer in his communication dated 31.8.2023, in fact in the enquiry report dated 21.9.2021, the charges against the petitioner had not been proved. In any case of the matter, the order of punishment as also the order rejecting his appeal cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relies upon the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570.
The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the State. Referring to the material on record it is submitted by learned counsel that the enquiry was conducted and the conclusion in the report arrived at on the basis of documentary evidence which are public documents in the nature of an F.I.R., pre-trap memorandum and the post-trap memorandum. Neither the petitioner raised any point with respect to the genuineness of the documents nor the same has been raised in the course of enquiry. The documents being admitted and unimpeachable, the Enquiry Officer rightly came to the conclusion finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been proved. It is further submitted that learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings. As such, there being no merit in the writ application, the same be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The relevant facts in brief are that while posted as a Clerk, the petitioner was allegedly caught taking a bribe of Rs.8,000/- on 18.4.2019 by the raiding team of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna and an F.I.R. came to be registered against him.
The petitioner was also served with a memo of charge and a departmental proceeding was started against him on 14.12.2019.
The charge against the petitioner was that in connection with an application for measurement of land filed by the applicant Lalita Devi, the petitioner was caught taking a bribe of Rs.8,000/- on 18.4.2019 from one Ravindra Kumar Shah who happen to be the son of Lalita Devi. He was taken into custody.
Along with the memo of charge, the list of documents in Part 4 mentioned the charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and a cutting of press report of a daily newspaper.
It transpires from the records of the case that the matter proceeded and an enquiry report dated 17.9.2021 came to be submitted by the Conducting Officer –cum– Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was arrested on 18.4.2019 for receiving illegal amount taken on account of work related to demarcation of land belonging to Lalita Devi. The Enquiry Officer further concluded that on 17.12.2018 itself the petitioner had handed over charge to one Bhagwat Narain Choudhary and was not in-charge of the post of Nazir. As no Amin was available in circle Sarairanjan, the work of demarcation of the applicant’s land could not be done for which the complainant was antagonised with the petitioner. The Conducting Officer was of the opinion that the petitioner having been transferred and having handed over the charge of Nazarat six months ago to some other person, there was no occasion for the complainant to come in contact with the petitioner and it is because of the strained relationship on account of the work not having been done that the petitioner was falsely implicated by the complainant.
It further transpires that inspite of the enquiry report dated 17.9.2021 having been submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur by his letter no.1265 dated 21.9.2021 to the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Samastipur, a letter dated 8.8.2022 was written by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Samastipur to the Conducting Officer asking him as to whether the charges against the petitioner were proved or not. The Conducting Officer replied by his letter dated 24.9.2022 that it was clear that the charges against the petitioner were not proved.
The District Magistrate wrote yet another letter dated 3.8.2023 to the Sub-Divisional Officer. It may be mentioned here itself that a new Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur had taken charge i.e. other than the one who had conducted the departmental enquiry. The new Sub-Divisional Officer responded by letter no.2365 dated 31.8.2023 stating therein that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.
In the opinion of the Court, the enquiry report of the Conducting Officer submitted on 17.9.2021 is clear and well reasoned when it concludes that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and that he had been falsely implicated in the case for reason of the complainant being antagonised with him. This was clearly evident from the fact that more than six months prior to the date of occurrence the petitioner had already handed over charge of the Nazarat to some other person and thus there was no occasion for complainant to meet him. Further the second Sub-Divisional Officer in his report dated 31.8.2023 though concludes that the charges levelled in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner were proved, however there is no discussion with respect to any oral or documentary evidence lead in course of enquiry on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional Officer is coming to such a conclusion. He only makes a bald statement about the petitioner having been caught red handed on 18.4.2019 by the Vigilance Team taking an illegal amount for the purpose of the work of demarcation. No evidence whatsoever having been lead at the enquiry nor discussed in the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.8.2023, the said conclusion arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the report is not sustainable.
On further perusal of the material on record it transpires that the memo of charge in Prapatra-Ka served on the petitioner does not contain the list of witnesses. In the enquiry report there was no reference to any witness having been examined nor any document being proved in support of the charges. Further the categorical stand of the petitioner that no copy of the enquiry report was provided to the petitioner nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to respond to the contents of the enquiry report before passing of the order of punishment has been contested or denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and on these grounds alone the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service as also the order rejecting his appeal is fit to be set aside.
In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“14.Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.”
Further by judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed in LPA no.1302 of 2017 (Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :-
“7.As has been held in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others; (2009) 2 SCC 570, the documents produced in a departmental inquiry has to be proved by examining witnesses. Even an F.I.R. was held to be not evidence by itself without actual proof of facts stated therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held that even an admission or confession to the police itself is not sufficient to find the delinquent employee guilty in a departmental proceeding if no evidence is brought on record to prove the offence or misconduct alleged. Departmental inquiry was held to be a quasi-judicial proceeding and the Inquiry Officer functions in the status of a quasi-judicial authority. Not only should evidence be led in a departmental inquiry, the conclusions arrived at should be based on evidence which brings forth a probability that the delinquent has committed the misconduct alleged and charged against him. No Inquiry Report based on conjectures and surmises can be sustained and even in a departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is not a mere suspicion. However high the degree of suspicion is, it cannot be a substitute for legal proof.”
Thus in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the second enquiry report contained in letter no.2365 dated 31.8.2023 (Annexure-P/4) issued under the signature of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur, the order of dismissal contained memo no.1419 dated 27.11.2023 (Annexure-P/2) issued under the signature of the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Samastipur as also the order dated 21.12.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed in Service Appeal Case no.22 of 2023 (Prabhakar Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga being unsustainable are all set aside.
The writ application is allowed with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary for the period of dismissal which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Footnotes
- 1.AFR/NAFR
- 2.CAV DATE 10.08.2026
- 3.Uploading Date 18.08.2026
- 4.Transmission Date