KRISHNA CHANDRA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners, who are the officers of the Government of Bihar, have challenged the report of the Bhagaipur Riot Enquiry Commissioner, as also the action taken by the State Government against some of them on the basis of the said report. The Enquiry Commission consisted of three members, and the petitioners herein are primarily aggrieved by the findings recorded against them in the majority report of the commission. It may be noticed that the Chairman of the Commission gave a dissenting report, but the majority report of the other two members of the Commission has been accepted by the Government of Bihar. These writ petitions along with C.WJ.C. No. 5790 of 1995 were directed to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court. However, after delivering judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 5790 of 1995 (L.K. Advani & ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.) allowing the writ petition, the Division Bench directed that these writ petitions be placed for hearing before an appropriate Bench, and be not treated as tied up along with the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 5790 of 1995. It is stated that the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment and order in C.W.J.C. No. 5790 of 1995 is pending before the Supreme Court. It also appears from the order of the Supreme Court dated 12-2-19% (Annexure-7) that in the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the State of Bihar against the interim orders passed in the instant writ petitions, notices have been issued, and an interim order staying the impugned orders has been passed, but with a direction that the interim stay need not hold up the proceedings in the High Court. In these circumstances, these writ petitions have been placed before this Bench for disposal.

(2.) The main submission urged in all the writ petitions is common, namely, that if the Commission considered it necessary to enquire into the conduct of any person, or was of the opinion that the reputation of a person was likely to be prejudicially affected by the enquiry, it ought to have given that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the enquiry and to give evidence in his defence. In some cases, it is submitted, no notice was given to the persons prejudicially affected, and in some cases notices were issued but those notices were challenged before this Court, and despite an order of stay, the Commission proceeded to submit its report commenting on the conduct of the concerned notices and making observations which prejudicially affect their reputation. It is submitted on behalf of such notices that the notices issued were vague, and it was impossible for the. notices to comprehend as to the nature of allegations made, against which they had to defend themselves. The notices issued were, therefore, defective in law. Other submissions have also been urged in some of the cases on behalf of the petitioners, but they shall be dealt with separately in this judgment.

(3.) I shall first notice the relevant facts. Communal riots broke out in and around the city of Bhagalpur on 24th October, 1989, and continued intermittently upto December 1989. Having regard to the communal disturbances, the Government of Bihar decided to constitute a Commission of Enquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952. Accordingly, a notification was issued on 8th December, 1989, appointing a single Member Commission of Enquiry, and appointing Sri R.N. Prasad, a retired Judge of Patna High Court as its sole member. The terms of reference of the Commission were as follows: