AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 06-08-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the BPSC and learned Counsel for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-
“That this writ application is
directed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order of penalties issued vide Memo No.3570 dated 24.09.2021 (contained in annexure- 13) issued by under the signature of respondent No.3, whereby and whereunder in a departmental proceeding penalties have been imposed for withholding of four increments of pay with cumulative effect under Rules 14(vi) of Bihar C.C.A. Rule, 2005 and also for quashing the Memo No.177 dated 12.01.2022(contained in Annexure-15) issued by under the signature of Respondent No.3, whereby and whereunder the review petition dated 10.12.2021 (contained in Annexure-14)filed against imposed penalties issued vide Memo No.3570 dated24.09.2021 has been dismissed in violation of principle of Natural Justice and without considering the grounds of review petition and other relevant facts.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 5241 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.3.2021. Counsel further submits that the learned singe Judge at the time of passing the order has categorically recorded that “ongoing through the entire materials available on record, the court finds that there are certain procedural irregularity in conduct of the departmental proceeding, particularly after the stage of second show cause notice as the respondents have not objectively considered the reply to the second show cause notice in proper perspective and, therefore, the decision to inflict punishment cannot sustain.” Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court pleased to allow the writ petition for the infirmity in inflicting major punishment and consequently quashed Annexure 9 holding that it is not sustainable. With this observation, the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to give fresh second show cause notice and after awarding opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pass appropriate order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 5241 of 2018, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide memo number 1929 dated 23.6.2021. In response thereof, the petitioner has filed reply to the second show cause which is Annexure 12 of the present writ petition on 12.7.2021. Thereafter, the final order has been passed on 24.9.2021 contained in Memo No. 3570 imposing punishment withholding of four increments with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the petitioner preferred review petition on 10.12.2021 before respondent No.3 with a prayer to recall the imposed penalty upon him. But the review preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide dated 12.01.2022
Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that in the contempt proceeding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to exonerate the petitioner from the contempt, but this aspect that petitioner has been exonerated completely ignored by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. He further submits only point of violation of restraint order has to be taken into consideration and major punishment has been imposed upon him. He further submits that when Contempt Court has already been exonerated the petitioner from the contempt, then in that case the finding of the Contempt Court has to be taken care by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. This is the major discrepancy in the impugned orders. He further submits that the punishment is excessive and it should be minimized if not set aside.
Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand, submits that it is not in dispute that the order imposing punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside by the Writ Court and the matter was remanded back from the stage of issuance of the second show cause. He further submits that it is also true that no contempt proceeding has been drawn against the present petitioner and he has been exonerated from the charge from this but with a view to justify the decision of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, the counsel for state has annexed Annexure R/1 in the counter affidavit and submits that vide order dated 8.5.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 5249 of 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has specifically directed as follows:
”However, it is directed that till further orders, capital assets of the company shall not be disposed of without taking permission of this court.”
Learned counsel further submits that admittedly this order has been passed on 8.5.2014. He submits that from the impugned order which is Annexure 13 (relevant page is 81), it is very much clear that the legal opinion was sought from the Advocate by the delinquent without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Legal opinion was sought on 1.7.2014 and subsequently on very next day i.e. 2.7.2014, in violation of the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, a land has been registered. The petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Registrar at the very relevant time.
Counsel for the state further submits that there was specific direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that sale shall be made only after taking permission from this Court but ignoring that order, petitioner sought opinion from the government advocate after about three months i.e. on 1.7.2014. Government counsel provided opinion and land has been sold which is in violation of the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is due to this reason, the disciplinary authority has taken action against him and not satisfied from his second show cause. He submits, therefore, that there is no need of any interference in the said order. As such, he submits that the writ petition should be dismissed.
With a view to proper appreciation of this writ petition, it is necessary to refresh on the observation made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.3.2021 passed in CWJC No. 5241 of 2018. Paragraph 12 to paragraph 14 are as follows:-
“12.On going through the entire materials available on record, the Court finds that there are certain procedural irregularity in conduct of the departmental proceeding, particularly after the stage of second show-cause notice as the respondents have not objectively considered the reply to the second show-cause notice in proper perspective and, therefore, the decision to inflict punishment cannot sustain. Accordingly, the Court is constrained to allow the writ application for the infirmity in inflicting major punishment and consequently Annexure-9 cannot sustain and is hereby quashed. However, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, the matter is remitted back for decision afresh for de-novo enquiry against the petitioner from the stage of second show-cause notice.
13.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority, who shall give fresh second show-cause notice and after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pass appropriate order on the issue of quantum of punishment considering the fact that the petitioner being the Sub-Registrar has admitted registration of the document. While taking decision in the departmental proceeding, the respondents have to draw the distinction between contempt and misconduct. The respondents are hereby directed to take appropriate decision afresh in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
14.Before parting with, the Court deem it fit and proper to remind the authority that matter involving defiance of the direction issued by the Apex Court should not be taken leniently, irrespective of the fact that contempt proceeding was dropped extending the benefit of doubt. The standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probability, whereas in contempt proceeding the Court is required to see whether there is deliberate and willful disobedience of the direction of the Court. Court has not fully exonerated the petitioner, the Apex Court held out that it does not constitute willful defiance constituting contempt.”
It is also pertinent to quote the operative portion of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.338 of 2014, as under :-
'It is shocking that an order passed by this court in the face of the provisions of Article 142 of the constitution could be ignored or disregarded by the officials who went ahead and registered the document.'
Meaning thereby the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the action of the petitioner being the Sub-Registrar is extremely hard in the opinion of the Court.
It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has not passed any order holding the petitioner guilty or imposing any punishment upon him in the contempt proceedings. However, merely because the petitioner was not punished for contempt, it cannot be construed to mean that no wrong was committed by him. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner was not punished in the contempt proceedings in view of the statutory provisions contained in Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly the proviso thereto, which empowers the Court to discharge the accused or remit the punishment awarded upon an apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. The Explanation appended to the said provision further provides that an apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional, if the accused makes it bona fide. Therefore, the fact that the contempt proceedings did not culminate in punishment cannot, by itself, be treated as a finding that the petitioner had committed no wrong or that his conduct was beyond reproach.
In the present case, it transpires from the record that the petitioner had tendered an apology before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for the wrong committed by him, namely, the alleged violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the apology tendered by the petitioner and, consequently, the contempt proceeding was dropped. It is, however, evident that the petitioner himself acknowledged the underlying act on affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the contempt proceeding.
In the circumstances, the fact that the petitioner had admitted the relevant conduct on affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be said to require proof afresh through the examination of witnesses in the departmental proceeding. The said affidavit and the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court constituted material available for consideration by the disciplinary authority.
The observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 14 of the impugned order is also relevant in this regard. The learned Single Judge has categorically observed that it would be fit and proper to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority, particularly since the matter involved alleged defiance of a direction issued by the Apex Court and, therefore, ought not to be dealt with leniently merely because the contempt proceeding had been dropped by extending the benefit of doubt.
It is well settled that the standard of proof applicable in a departmental proceeding is that of preponderance of probabilities, whereas, in a proceeding for contempt, the Court is required to be satisfied regarding deliberate and wilful disobedience of its order. Therefore, the dropping of the contempt proceeding does not, by itself, operate as a complete exoneration of the petitioner from the underlying conduct for the purposes of a departmental proceeding. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the contempt proceeding indicates that the conduct of the petitioner was not found to constitute wilful disobedience so as to attract punishment for contempt. However, such finding, by itself, cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner stood fully exonerated of the underlying conduct for all purposes. The disciplinary authority was, therefore, entitled to examine the said conduct independently on the touchstone of the standard applicable to departmental proceedings, subject to the material available on record and the principles of natural justice.
In the light of the observations and reasons discussed above, this court finds that punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is absolutely in accordance with law and there is no need of any interference as the preponderance of probability proves that the petitioner is responsible for disobedience of honorable court's order.
Accordingly, the present Writ petition stands dismissed.