MOTI LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, has prayed for quashing of the findings of the departmental proceeding bearing no. 26 of 2016 issued by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, Bihar, Patna contained in letter no. 595 dtd. 14/10/2016 and for quashing of the final order of punishment dtd. 17/7/2017, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been subjected to the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is further prayed that the order dtd. 6/10/2017, whereby the review petition of the petitioner has been dismissed, may also be quashed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a news item was published in the daily newspaper namely Dainik Bhaskar on 23/3/2016 about an M.L.A. of Nawada namely Rajballabh Yadav having provided colours and kheer-puri to all the prisoners of Mandal Kara, Biharsharif on 22/3/2016 and that mutton was going to be provided on 23/3/2016. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Nalanda constituted a joint inquiry team and directed them to conduct an instant inspection/ raid in the said Mandal Kara, Biharsharif on 23/3/2016 and submit a report. The said team after conducting surprise inspection, submitted a report dtd. 23/3/2016, wherein it was stated that the news item published in the daily newspaper was true. Thereafter, the petitioner herein and the Assistant Jail Superintendent, Biharsharif were put under suspension and a departmental inquiry was initiated against them. As far as the petitioner is concerned, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide resolution dtd. 26/3/2016 issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director (Prison), Prison and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna on the charges of preparing special food in the jail by calling a special cook, not maintaining important jail registers, entry of huge quantity of goods without any gate entry being made and provided DTH connection in the ward of M.L.A. The Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry and submitted the inquiry report dtd. 14/10/2016, whereby and whereunder the charges no. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 were found to have been fully proved while charge no.4 was found to have been partly proved. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dtd. 23/11/2016 and after the petitioner filed a reply to the same, the order of punishment dtd. 17/7/2017 was passed by the disciplinary authority subjecting the petitioner to the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner had then preferred a review petition which was also rejected by an order dtd. 6/10/2017.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a bare perusal of the inquiry report dtd. 14/10/2016 would demonstrate that the Inquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him only on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the District Magistrate, Nalanda dtd. 25/3/2016. The learned counsel further submits that paragraph no. 2.3 at page no.2 of the inquiry report would show that no oral evidence was adduced in connection with the charges leveled against the petitioner, hence it is clear that the present case is a case of no evidence, especially since the inquiry report dtd. 25/3/2016 submitted by the District Magistrate, Nalanda has also not been proved. Nonetheless, it is submitted that had the prosecution examined the members of the inquiry team/ District Magistrate, Nalanda as witness to the present case, the petitioner would have got the chance to cross-examine them, hence the nonexamination of the said witnesses has caused prejudice to the petitioner herein, resulting in the entire inquiry being a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that a bare perusal of the analysis done by the inquiry officer charge-wise would show that the entire basis of coming to a finding of guilt, as against the petitioner herein, is the inquiry report dtd. 25/3/2016, which has not been proved by tendering any witness during the course of the departmental inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC 2270 (Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank) to contend that the entire findings of the inquiry officer being based on no evidence, is non est in the eyes of law, hence the order of punishment and the review order is fit to be set aside.