Vijay Kumar vs State of Bihar and Others

Nagendra Rai, J.—The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.10.1996 issued by Respondent No. 5, the Managing Director, Chief of Administration, Bihar Water Development Corporation, Patna by which he has terminated the service of the Petitioner with effect from 13.11.1981. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ application.

In view of the nature of the order which I have proposed to pass it is not necessary to state the fact in detail. The Petitioner at the relevant time was working in the Department of Bihar Water Development (hereinafter referred to as the Department). He was transferred to the office of Chief Engineer, Muzaffarpur. After joining there he has absented from duty with regard to which a departmental proceeding was initiated and the enquiry was conducted by an authority other than Disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the Petitioner of the charges and thereafter the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority removing the Petitioner from service.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner apart from other points has submitted that once the enquiry report was in favour of the Petitioner the disciplinary authority should have served copy of the enquiry report and the tentative grounds for differing with the enquiry report and after giving an opportunity of hearing/representation, should have been finally disposed of by the disciplinary authority. The point raised by the Petitioner is well founded and is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in 1995 S.C. 2713 wherein the Apex Court has said that when the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the inquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the inquiry officer they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the Inquiry Officer''s report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In any such situation the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed.

The said procedure has not been followed even enquiry report was not supplied to the Petitioner before passing the order of punishment. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated on he aforesaid grounds and accordingly the same is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Respondent authority. In case the disciplinary authority decides to offers with the findings of the enquiry officer then he will serve a copy of the enquiry reports together with a tentative ground for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer and, thereafter, after giving in opportunity of hearing/representation to the Petitioner should decide the proceeding in accordance with law.

In the result, this application is allowed with aforesaid direction/observation.