DEVENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a Senior Jail Superintendent who was dismissed from service after a disciplinary proceeding was conducted and concluded, finding him guilty. In the writ petition the learned Single Judge refused to express any opinion for the present, especially since the writ petitioner was found to have not responded to the charges relating to financial irregularities simply on the plea of non-supply of documents. It was found that the Vigilance Report together with its enclosures, forming the basis of the disciplinary proceeding, was supplied to the delinquent. It was held that the disciplinary proceeding is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and since the criminal case against the officer is still pending, for the present, no indulgence is called for. It was observed that the petitioner would have the liberty to take recourse to such remedy if and when the criminal case ultimately is settled in his favour.

(2.) At the outset, it has to be stated that we are unable to agree with the said findings, especially since the learned Single Judge has not gone into the aspect of whether there was any evidence on which the delinquent employee could be found guilty, even on preponderance of probability, in the inquiry proceeding. Merely because the delinquent employee failed to respond to the charges relating to financial irregularities, the Department is not absolved of the responsibility to lead evidence at the inquiry and enable the Inquiry Officer to enter a finding of guilt on the evidence led at the inquiry. It goes without saying that the inquiry though has to be held in strict compliance of the principles of natural justice; affording every opportunity to the delinquent employee to controvert his charges, if the delinquent employee does not cooperate, findings can be entered into on the evidence led.

(3.) The findings in such an inquiry would be seldom interfered with by Courts, especially when sitting in judicial review, which jurisdiction we are exercising under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when there is some evidence on which the finding is entered into. However, if the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has relied on extraneous matters and if there is no evidence to find the complicity of the delinquent employee, then there definitely could be interference caused by this Court, under judicial review.