CHANDRA DEO SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 14.6.2005, passed in Service Appeal Case No. 38 of 2001 by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, affirming the order of dismissal, communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, vide Memo No. 37 (Legal), dated 17.7.1999. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order of dismissal, contained in Memo No. 37 (Legal), dated 17.7.1999. Further, prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to treat him reinstated in service till the date he would have superannuated from service in normal course, i.e., 31.12.2002 and to provide him with arrears of Salary and other service benefits consequential to reinstatement in service.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, in Service Appeal No. 38 of 2001 as well as the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, dated 17.7.1999, dismissing him from service with retrospective effect on the ground that the orders have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The rule provides for holding a regular departmental enquiry and only after the charges are proved by producing departmental witnesses and by examining them by the enquiring officer, any order of punishment could have been passed. Even if the petitioner did not attend the enquiry the onus of proving of charges is cast upon the department. Since no witnesses were called by the department in support of charges, it will amount that the department has not proved its case and in such a situation the enquiry officer could not have recorded the finding with regard to guilt against the petitioner simply because he was absent. It has also been submitted by the petitioner 'scounsel that he was never served with any charges, nor given any opportunity to refute the charges framed against him. In.that view the process of entire departmental proceeding as well as the consequential orders are completely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as such, fit to be quashed. The petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service and for all consequential benefits. In support of his submission the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2000 3 PLJR 10 Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar V/s. B.S. Co -opt. Land Dev. Bank Ltd. & Ors., as well as 1993 4 SCC 727 (Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. V/s. B. Kamrankar & Ors.) and AIR 1998 SC 2722 (Union of India & Ors. V/s. Dinanath Shantaram Karakar & Ors.).