SURESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 2.6.1997, when three charges were framed against him.

(2.) The petitioner submitted his show cause. The enquiry report came to be submitted on 18.3.1998. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him with regard to charges 1 & 2. On charge 3 it was held that he was partially guilty of not being careful in issuance of cheques. The department not being satisfied with the enquiry report decided to hold a fresh deparmental Proceeding by order dated 30.9.2002. On 21.10.2002 the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. On 19.8.2003 the Inquiry Officer returned the records for the reason that the Presenting Officer was continuously absent without any intimation, and, therefore, it was not possible for him to proceed with the enquiry. On 22.5.2006 the department again decided to hold re -enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. On receipt of notice, the petitioner stated that he had already filed his show cause on 21.10.2002 and had nothing further to say in the matter. An enquiry report then came to be submitted afresh. The finding this time with regard to item no. 3 of the earlier report was that his intention did not appear to be clear and, therefore, he could not be absolved of the liability; that he could not be absolved of the second charge while the third charge could not be proved against him. A second show cause notice dated 3.4.2007 followed on basis of the same as to why he be not dismissed from service.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no justification for the fresh enquiry by orders dated 30.9.2002 and 22.5.2006. The petitioner had been exonerated in the first enquiry by the report dated 18.3.1998. There were no allegations of procedural impropriety in the earlier departmental proceedings. No evidence or material was alleged to have been left out of consideration and there were no witnesses whose evidence had not been considered or were denied deposition. The order for de novo enquiry was, therefore, bad in law. Even after the fresh enquiry commenced, no fresh evidence was led by the department, no witnesses were examined and only on basis of the show cause submitted by the petitioner earlier on 21.10.2002 read along with the memo of charges only the Inquiry Officer conducted an illegal departmental proceedings by himself to arrive at a finding of guilt of the petitioner with regard to two charges. Even this was not a positive finding of guilt but was based merely on conjecture and surmises unsupported by any evidence or documents.