FAIYAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN case after case one comes across such basic and gross errors in holding disciplinary proceedings that one can not help thinking that the Government officials have forgotten how to conduct a disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent employee. What is worse is that they do not seem to learn or even to listen when this court explains, step by step, the legally correct procedure to be followed in holding a disciplinary proceeding. The result is that delinquent Government employees facing grave charges and who should apparently be thrown out of the Government employment without any loss of time are allowed to continue in employment for long years at considerable expense of time and money to be borne by the State. The case in hand is one such illustration.

(2.) THE petitioner, a class III employee in the Water Resources Department of the Government, seeks to challenge order no. 18, dated 18.2.1996 (Annexure 1) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government dismissing him from service on certain charges. The order has been passed on the basis of an enquiry report, dated 23.8.1995 submitted by the Chief Engineer cum Enquiry Officer along with his letter dated 25.8.1995 (Annexure 35).

(3.) IT is not needed to go into the controversy and for the purpose of this case Suffice it to say that earlier the petitioner was dismissed from service by order, dated 18.6.1994 (A copy of this order is made Annexure 12 to the present writ petition). The earlier order of dismissal was passed on the basis of an enquiry report, dated 21.4.1994 (a copy of the enquiry report is at Annexure 13 to the present writ petition). At that stage, the petitioner came to this court in CWJC No. 6564/1994, challenging the order of dismissal, dated 18.6.1994 which was marked as Annexure 1 to that writ petition. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities in that case it came to light that the order of dismissal was passed on the basis of the enquiry report, dated 21.4.1994 which was marked as Annexure 'F ' to the counter affidavit. That writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal was quashed with a direction to the authority to hold a fresh enquiry giving the petitioner an opportunity to file his show cause in connection with the charges against him. This court also indicated the manner in which the enquiry was to be held. It is also significant to note that this court also quahsed both the order of dismissal, dated 18.6.1994 and the enquiry report, dated 21.4.1994. The relevant portion from that order may be reproduced here : "It appears that under some confusion the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceeding. The charge against the petitioner are very serious. In my view, in the ends of justice, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding to file his show cause and if the charges are denied, to adduce evidence in support of his denial. "Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The enquiry report contained in Annexure 'F ' and the order of dismissal contained in Annexure 1 are hereby quahsed. Now the disciplinary authority shall either direct the same very inquiring officer to proceed further with the enquiry de novo or shall appoint any person as inquiring officer for the purposes of the said enquiry. The petitioner is directed to file his show cause before the enquiry officer within a period of one month from today. I may, however, observe that if it is not possible to file a detailed show cause and the petitioner wants copies of the relevant documents which have got bearing on the charges, then in the show cause he may keep his right reserved for filing a further show cause and if the petitioner applies for the copies of the relevant documents, the same should be supplied to him unless it is not bulky. If the documents are bulky one, the petitioner may be given right to make inspection thereof in the departmental proceeding after filing of the show cause. "It is needless to say that in the departmental proceeding after the same becomes ready for evidence, first „ the State will be asked to adduce evidence and thereafter the delinquent Government servant shall be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. Thereafter the enquiry officer shall submit his report before the disciplinary authority, which shall pass order thereupon in accordance with law after supplying a copy thereof to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was earlier under suspension and the charges are very serious, I do not find any reason why during the pendency of the departmental proceeding the petitioner be not suspended by the State Government."