SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings leading to the award of punishment of dismissal under order dated 15.10.2013 vide Resolution No 3839 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Labour Resources Department is without following procedure as prescribed under the Rules under which the same has been initiated. A consolidated order of punishment has been inflicted in respect of the allegations made at two different times. One charge memo was issued under the earlier Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1935 (for brevity, Bihar CCA Rules), and the second proceedings were conducted under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It is the specific case of the petitioner that right from initiation of the proceedings, the respondents have not observed the procedure as even charge memo was not communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner has also asserted that during the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, there was no evidence whatsoever, either documentary or oral in support of the charges. The petitioner has asserted that since no evidence was led in respect of the charges, the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer was without any basis. Even the Bihar Public Service Commission (for brevity, BPSC), which was a necessary consultant in the matter with respect to the petitioner, has opined that the proposed punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner, in his response to second show cause, which has been submitted before the Disciplinary Authority on 02.07.2012, has raised all these issues highlighting the procedural lapse and total non-compliance of the procedure of fairness. The petitioner has given point wise response to all the allegations in respect of which the Enquiry Officer has submitted his recommendations of the charges having been proved. The detailed response to second show cause of the petitioner in respect of both the set of charges have been rejected by the Disciplinary Authority while recording the impugned order of punishment by recording as follows: