SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dtd. 8/10/2018 (Annexure 6) whereby and where under the Disciplinary Authority, i e, District Magistrate -cum- Collector, Patna has awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from the service against the petitioner. Further challenge is to the order dtd. 14/7/2022 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure 7A) whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Revenue Staff and at the relevant time, i e, in the year 2014, he was posted as Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. Vide letter dated 859 dtd. 16/3/2015, a charge memo in Prapatra Ka was issued against him wherein eight charges were framed. Presenting Officer and Conducting Officer were also appointed. The charge memo was served on the petitioner on 24/4/2015. He submitted his reply on 9/5/2015 and demanded certain documents on which the said charges were framed but no document was provided to the petitioner. Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report (Annexure 3) dtd. 22/7/2015. Second show cause was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure 4 series dtd. 11/12/2015. Again, the petitioner demanded certain documents through his communication dtd. 12/1/2016 which has not been provided to him. Subsequently, vide order dtd. 3/5/2018 (Annexure 5), again second charge memo has been issued against the petitioner and again the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed. Subsequently, on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 22/7/2015, the order of punishment has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure 6 dtd. 8/10/2018 by which the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement from the services against the petitioner. Departmental appeal has been preferred by the petitioner which has also been rejected by order dtd. 14/7/2022 (Annexure 7A). Hence, this petition.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after submission of the enquiry report dtd. 22/7/2015, no decision has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently the second charge memo (Annexure 5) dtd. 3/5/2018 has been issued against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the enquiry report dtd. 22/7/2015 of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure 3) passed the impugned order of punishment. After issuance of the second charge memo, no further enquiry was held and while passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement from services, the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the show cause submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that on both occasions, i e, at the time of issuance of both the charge memos, neither any list of witnesses nor list of documents were prepared and without recording of any evidence and without examining any of the witness, the Enquiry Officer found some of the charges proved against the petitioner. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based upon certain documents but none of the witnesses have tendered such documents during the course of enquiry. According to the counsel, the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order impugned, did not consider this aspect and further the Appellate Authority also did not consider this aspect and passed the order of rejection of the appeal.