PATNA, India, July 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 1:
Heard the parties.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order dated 25.02.2020, as contained in Memo No. 2/M2- 70-06/2013 Home (Police)/1978, issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Police), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner further sought quashing of the order as contained in Memo No.2/Police-70-06/2013 Home (Police)/8509 dated 14.12.2020, whereby the review preferred against the order of punishment came to be rejected.
3. The petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jamalpur, when an incident occurred in 2011 involving indiscriminate firing. Vide Letter No. 1992, dated 05.06.2013, the Inspector General (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna, requested the Home Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for allegedly assisting the accused from one group, disobeying superior officers, and restraining subordinates from arresting the accused. A Memo of Charge dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure-P/12) was issued with three charges and a list of documents, but no witness list. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.11.2014 (AnnexureP/16). No progress occurred for three years, prompting the petitioner to request closure of proceedings vide letters dated 14.11.2017 (to ADG HQ) and 31.07.2018 (to DGP Bihar). No action followed. On 07.01.2019, the Inquiry Officer requested the appointment of a Presenting Officer. Post appointment, the petitioner was asked to produce and verify documents through witnesses. Two constables from the offices of the IG, Bhagalpur, and SP, Munger, were produced by the Presenting Officer as witnesses. The petitioner submitted his defence statement on 10.06.2019. The Presenting Officer was directed to respond. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.07.2019 (AnnexureP/29), finding Charge nos. 1 and 2 proved, while Charge no. 3 was not proved.
4. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with the second show-cause along with the enquiry report on 13.08.2019. The petitioner immediately submitted his reply to the second show-cause. However, it did not find any favour and the impugned order of punishment came to be passed on 25.02.2020 by the respondent no.2.
5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Review, however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 14.12.2020. Both the orders, aforenoted, are challenged in the present writ petition.
Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner assailing the impugned orders primarily questioned the legality of the Memo of charge and submitted that admittedly there had been no list of witnesses to bring home the charges and thus violating the Rules 17(4) and 17 (14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules, 2005'). In absence of the witnesses to prove the charges, the natural corollary is the finding of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. Moreover, the SHO, who was the most important witness to prove the charge no.1, his deposition has not been recorded. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Munger and the Investigating officer, who were the most important witnesses to prove charge no.2, they were never produced as witness in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner on account of nonproduction of witnesses got no opportunity to cross-examine them. The two witnesses, who were produced as the witnesses were only formal witness and deposed to verify the documents, yet the contents of the document not proved by any witness. The entire departmental proceeding was conducted on five dates. Moreover, the Presenting Officer failed to discharge his role to bring the evidence and prove the charges. All the more, he was absent on three days and only completed the formality without giving any comment.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNjEwNSMyMDIyIzEjTg==-mnLnCqbyiWQ=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
