RAJENDRA RAM Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner while was posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur vide letter No. 3048 dated 22.4.2000 was asked to file his show cause in respect of charges as incorporated in HINDI MATTER. Vide letter dated 22nd April 2000 the petitioner was asked to file his reply in respect of eight charges allegedly committed by him during the year 1993-94. Regarding the aforesaid charge the District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabhua had recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding. Petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply denying the charges leveled against him and prayed for his exoneration. However, in the year 2002 the Government of Bihar resolved to initiate regular departmental proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1930 (hereafter referred to as "C.C.A. Rules, 1930") for the aforesaid eight charges, which are as follows:

(3.) By the said resolution Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was appointed as the Conducting Officer and the District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabua was asked to suggest name of a senior officer for being appointed as Presenting Officer. The petitioner by the said resolution was asked to file his reply in his defence within fifteen days. In compliance with the said resolution dated 24.9.2002 the petitioner again submitted his written defence explaining his innocence regarding each charges and prayed for exonerating him. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner had noticed several irregularities in the initiation of departmental proceedings. Even there were defects in the memo of charge, and thereafter, the Conducting Officer had asked the Administrative Department to remove the defects for initiation of departmental proceeding and thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear for preliminary enquiry on 14.6.2004. The petitioner thereafter filed supplementary written defence before the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner vide his letter dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure - '8' to the writ petition) and he also requested for granting him permission to orally present his remaining defence before the Enquiry Officer. Finally, the Enquiry Officer in its report found charge No. 5, 6 and 8 as proved, charge No. 2 and 4 were found partly proved and charge No. 1, 3, 7 were found proved. After receipt of enquiry report the disciplinary authority communicating enquiry report to the delinquent/petitioner asked for his second show cause. Subsequently, vide letter No. 10867 dated 27th October 2006 (Annexure -'11' series) the disciplinary authority partly differing with the enquiry report in respect of charge No. 3 asked for explanation from the petitioner, which according to the petitioner was replied vide letter dated 9.11.2006. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by the impugned order i.e. the order contained in memo No. 3573 dated 2.4.2007 imposed two punishments under Rule 55 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1930, namely (i) censure for the year 1994-95 and (ii) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect (Annexure - '2' to the writ petition). The petitioner, aggrieved with the order of punishment in the departmental proceeding filed an Appeal under Rule 32(4) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. However, since the punishment order was imposed with the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Minister, the Appeal preferred by the petitioner was placed before the Cabinet and the Appeal was rejected by the Cabinet and said order was communicated vide Government Resolution No. 1469 dated 6th February, 2008 (Annexure - '1' to the writ petition). In the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed both the orders i.e. the order contained in Annexure - '2' to the writ petition (i.e. the order of punishment) and order of rejection of his Appeal (Annexure -'1' to the writ petition).