Amrendra Kumar Rajak vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard counsels for the petitioner and the respondents-State.

While posted as clerk in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, the petitioner was made an accused in a trap case for the allegation

of acceping bribe of Rs. 10,000/-. Pursuant thereto a charge memo was also issued to the petitioner on 14.08.2010. Petitioner submitted his reply to

the same. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 01.02.2011 wherein it was expressed that it was not possible to record any findings

conclusively with respect to charge nos. 2, 3 and 4. However, with respect to charge no. 1 it has been mentioned that the charges were not proved.

Suspension of the petitioner was also revoked. The said findings of the Enquiry Officer were accepted by the disciplinary authority which is evident

from the office order dated 04.02.2011 issued by the disciplinary authority.

It appears that as a matter of policy so as to penalize corrupt officials, some decisions were communicated to the disciplinary authority again and

pursuant thereto by letter dated 23.01.2014 all the District Superintendents of Education were directed to expedite the proceedings which were

pending before them and to submit an enquiry report within a week. The said instruction was also with respect to the petitioner as would be evident

from the list appended to the said order. Pursuant thereto it appears that the petitioner was again placed under suspension by Annexure 7 which is

letter dated 03.02.2014 whereby the proceedings were directed to be concluded on the basis of a charge memo (Prapatra „Ka‟). Pursuant thereto

the enquiry was concluded. The report of the Enquiry Officer is dated 08.03.2011. The findings of the Enquiry Officer is as follows:

“

36/2010

â€​

From perusal of the Enquiry report it is quite obvious that again the Enquiry Officer had reiterated the findings recorded in the first enquiry report

dated 01.02.2011 to the extent that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, it was not proper to record any conclusive findings in respect of the

petitioner. The last sentence merely states that in respect of proved matters, the conduct of the delinquent would be considered contrary to the rules.

The last sentence of enquiry report thus qualifies the first part of the order wherein it is said that till such time the proceedings in the criminal case

are not concluded it is not proper/possible to record conclusive findings in respect of the petitioner. On the basis of such enquiry report and in respect

thereof the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 19.03.2014 has called for the petitioner‟s comments. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the

second show cause. Again the delinquent has denied the charges and highlighted the various procedural irregularities in conducting of the proceedings

including the total lack of evidence.

Without going into the details of the second show cause this Court finds that it is specifically recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated

08.03.2011 that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, it is not possible to record conclusive findings with respect to the petitioner. However, in

respect of proved matters, the conduct of the delinquent would be considered contrary to the Rules. Such findings of the Enquiry Officer are general

and not specific to the petitioner and does not support the petitioner‟s guilt on any charge whatsoever. However, the disciplinary authority has called

for a second show cause from the petitioner without even differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has drawn an order of punishment

dated 12.04.2014 against the petitioner which is Annexure 1 of the writ petition. From perusal of the same it is obvious that other than a pre-trap

memorandum and post-trap memorandum, no evidence whatsoever has been considered so as to record the findings of guilt against the petitioner.

The submissions of the State counsel that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is against the petitioner, is not acceptable. At best the findings of the

Enquiry Officer would be a general observation. Even if the same is accepted then such vague and general observations cannot form the basis of

inflicting the most severe punishment of dismissal of service of a delinquent. Such harsh consequences can only be inflicted upon the petitioner if there

is a clear and definite findings holding the charges proved with reference to relevant and cogent material adduced in an enquiry, conducted in

accordance with law. This is not the case here.

The procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is in violation of Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)

Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as „the Bihar CCA Rules), the same is also unsustainable in as much as no clear and definite finding of guilt has

been recorded against the petitioner with reference to any material of evidence.

During pendency of the writ petition the petitioner‟s appeal has been decided by order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Director Secondary

Education, Patna. The same merely reiterates findings of the disciplinary authority which as noticed above has been arrived at by adopting a

procedure contrary to Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules as also without considering any material or evidence on record.

In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court would quash the punishment order of the disciplinary authority dated 12.04.2014 as also the appellate

order dated 04.08.2015. It would however be open to the disciplinary authority to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the Bihar CCA

Rules after following the procedure prescribed therein and after affording due opportunity to the petitioner under the said rule.

The petitioner thus stands reinstated and would be entitled to all consequential benefits admissible in law on account of quashing of the order of

punishment against the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.