KUMAR DHARMENDRA NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure -35) whereby he has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history. By order dated 4.11.1996 (Annexure -13) petitioner who happened to be a clerk in the Bihar State Seed Certification Agency, hereinafter referred to as the Agency, was dismissed from service. He challenged his order of dismissal by filing a writ application before this Court which was registered as CWJC No. 1629 of 1997 (Kumar Dharmendra Narayan Singh V/s.The State of Bihar and Others). This Court by order dated 21.4.1997 found that before dismissing the petitioner from service no enquiry was held and the procedure prescribed under the service rule was not followed. This Court further found that before passing the impugned order the principles of natural justice was not followed and accordingly the order of dismissal dated 4.11.1996 was struck down. However, while doing so, this Court gave liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter again by order dated 3.11.1998 (Annexure -17) petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal petitioner preferred CWJC No. 6916 of 1999 (Kumar Dharmendra Narain Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others) before this Court. By order dated 10.7.2000 (Annexure -18) the order of dismissal was set aside and while doing so this Court observed as follows : "In the circumstances, the enquiry report being based on no evidence, as the same cannot be held to be legal, the order of punishment based on such enquiry report is fit to be set aside."

(3.) RESPONDENTS by order dated 21.8.2000 (Annexure -21) decided to hold enquiry and appointed Mr. Mohan Jha as the Conducting Officer and one Sri Suresh Prasad Sinha as the presenting officer. Memo of charges were also served on the petitioner which contained four charges. The first charge related to absence without leave and over stayal beyond the period of leave. The second charge pertained to disobedience of the order and dereliction of duty whereas 3rd charge related to abusing other employees and threatening them to shoot them dead. The 4th charge pertained to obtaining the file from the Despatch Section of the Agriculture Department relating to his appointment on the basis of the forged signature and getting the same disappear. The enquiry officer submitted its report dated 20.11.2000. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the first charge but had not recorded any finding in relation to the second charge. As regards the third charge the enquiry officer has observed that in relation to the allegation of abusing the fellow employees and threatening to shoot them dead was examined by a committee but the committee had not submitted its report. After saying so the enquiry officer has not recorded his finding. The enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of the fourth charge.