RAM NAMUNA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order of suspension passed against them in contemplation of a proceeding to by drawn up under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The petitioners have not only challenged the order of suspension, but also the proceeding under Rule 55 of the aforesaid Rule. The representative facts are taken from CWJC No. 6702 of 1991.

(2.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Junior Engineer in the Department of Road Construction, Government of Bihar. On 23 -10 -1986 he was called upon to furnish his explanation with regard to six charges levelled against him, which were communicated to him by Annexure 2. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the charges levelled against the petitioner, but some of the charges, particularly charge No. 1 appears to be rather serious. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the matter was considered in the Department at various levels. From the extract of the noting in the file, as produced before us (Annexure 3) it appears that while charge No. 1 was said to have been established, the other charges were not established. A. note was put up by the Joint Secretary to the effect that the punishment of censure may be recorded against the petitioner in the fact of the case. The matter ultimately went to the Eagineer -in -Chief, who by his noting dated 16 -11 -90 proposed that the order of the Government may be obtained. It appears that the Minister concerned did not agree with the proposal and ultimately the Department decided to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Rules. A charge -sheet was thereafter submitted against the petitioner, which is Annexure 4, and the petitioner was called upon to furnish his explanation. It is not disputed that a regular departmental proceeding is contemplated, and pending the departmental proceeding the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 19 -1 -91 (Annexure 1).

(3.) RULE 49 of the Rules prescribes the penalties which may be imposed for good and sufficient reason upon the members of the services governed by the said Rules, Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 49 provide for punishment of censure, withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar and recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders respectively. Rule 55 provides an elaborate procedure for conduct of a departmental enquiry where charges are framed against a Government servant, and in terms provides that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed on a member of a service unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The Rule goes to lay down the procedure that must be followed including holding of enquiry, recording of evidence etc. Rule 55 -A was inserted by an amendment in the year 1960. It provides that without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 55, no order imposing the penalty specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 49 on any Government servant to whom these Rules are applicable, shall be passed unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make, and such represntation, if any, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. 4. -A. The scheme of the rules, therefore, its that for imposition of minor punishment the procedure laid down under Rule 55 -A has to be followed. However, in the case of major punishment the procedure laid down under Rule 55 has to be followed, which is a detailed procedure.