AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenging the finding recorded by an Enquiry
Officer on 11.06.2007 (Annexure 11) and the consequential
punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide Annexure-12,
withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and
confirming the period of suspension this writ petition has been
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a
Peon in the office of Block Office, Sasaram, that in the elections
to the Gram Panchayat held in the year 2000, it is alleged
against the petitioner that the Election Officer-cum-Block
Development Officer, Sasaram, namely one Shri Vijay Kumar
Singh, refused to accept the nomination paper of a female
candidate who wanted to contest the election as Mukhiya. On
this it is alleged that the petitioner instigated the female
candidate to misbehave with the Election Officer. Thereafter she
misbehaved with the Election Officer. Based on a written
complaint received by the Election Officer Shri Vijay Kumar
Singh on 16.09.2006 charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner.
When the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him, a
departmental enquiry was constituted. A letter dated 11.08.2006
vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition it was communicated that
in the departmental proceeding while the Sub Divisional Officer
was appointed the Conducting Officer, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh
himself was made the Presenting Officer, and without entering
the witness and giving any statement the letter of Shri Vijay
Kumar Singh was accepted, the finding of guilt was recorded
against the petitioner and the impugned punishment was
imposed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the
proceeding of the departmental enquiry primarily on two counts.
One that Shri Vijay Kumar Singh being the complainant cannot
be made the Presenting Officer as he was prosecutor in his own
case and the second contention was that the complaint of Shri
Vijay Kumar Singh on 16.09.2006 was accepting in evidence.
The complainant Shri Vijay Kumar Singh has not been
examined in the departmental proceeding and without granting
an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant by the
petitioner.
Even though the learned counsel for the State tried to
submit that only a minor punishment of withholding of one
increment without cumulative effect has been imposed and the
allegation levelled against the petitioner in the departmental
enquiry stands proved, I am of the considered view that even if
a minor punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner the
same has adverse consequence on the service career of the
petitioner and therefore before taking such penal action
opportunity for grant of hearing and the principles of natural
justice are required to be followed. In this case, apart from the
fact that the complainant Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Election
Officer, acted as a prosecutor, he did not enter the witness box,
did not prove the complaint and the charges levelled in the
complaint, he was not subjected to cross-examination and based
on his written communication dated 16.09.2006 which was
made behind the back of the petitioner, the only charge by the
prosecutor is found to be proved.
That being in default followed by the principles of
natural justice having been done without following the due
process of law I find sufficient reason to allow the writ petition
and quash the impugned action.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The
impugned order dated 12.07.2007 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition)
is quashed. Consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner.