Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.842 of 2012 ===================================================== 1. Ram Prit Rai Son Of Late Baldeo Rai Resident Of Village-Narepur West, P.S.-Bachchwara, District-Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2337 of 2012 ==================================================== 1. Ram Prit Rai Son Of Late Baldeo Rai Resident Of Village - Narepur West, P.S.- Bachchwara, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ===================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.842 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal SC-24 ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2. 10-02-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State in both the writ applications. The issues are interconnected and thus they are being disposed by this common order. C.W.J.C. No. 842 of 2012 seeks revocation of suspension urging that the departmental enquiry has been completed and a report of exoneration submitted on 14.7.2010. The continued suspension thereafter, by not Patna High Court CWJC No.842 of 2012 (3) dt.10-02-2012 2 concluding the proceedings is unjustified. C.W.J.C. No. 2337 of 2012 questions the fresh resolution dated 13.7.2011 initiating de novo enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the report of exoneration was not acceptable, the respondents were obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 18(2) and (3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟). It is not permissible for the respondents to adopt a procedure contrary to the statutory provisions. The resolution dated 13.7.2011 does not mention any grounds to justify a de novo enquiry. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was suspended in pursuance of Vigilance case No. 42 of 2008 registered on 15.7.2008 under [STATUTE] ., read with Section 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Vigilance case is still pending. The authorities were satisfied of the need for a de novo enquiry after considering the enquiry report. The petitioner shall have full opportunity to defend himself all over again. The Court may not interfere. Rules 18(2) and 18(3) read as follows:- “18(2) The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the enquiry report as per rule 17 (23)(ii) or as per sub-rule (1), shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose. 18(3) The disciplinary authority Patna High Court CWJC No.842 of 2012 (3) dt.10-02-2012 3 shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, together with its own findings, if any, as provided in sub-rule (2), to the government servant who may submit, if he or she so desire, his or her written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days.” If the statute provides a procedure it has to be followed. Other modes of performance are forbidden. A procedure followed, contrary to the statute, is a nullity. A de novo enquiry is permissible in law. But, it has to be preceded by a reasoned and speaking order disclosing the grounds and justification of the same. If the enquiry was not held in accordance with law, or proper materials were not placed before the enquiry officer leading to exoneration de novo enquiry may be justified. The law has been discussed in (1999) 1 SCC 733 (Union of India v. P. Thayagarajan) at Paragraph-8 as follows:- “8. A careful reading of this passage will make it clear that this Court notices that if in a particular case where there has been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept into the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the enquiry or were not examined, the disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence but that provision would not enable the disciplinary authority to set aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the enquiry officer does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the basis upon which the disciplinary authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted by Patna High Court CWJC No.842 of 2012 (3) dt.10-02-2012 4 the enquiry officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When important evidence, either to be relied upon by the Department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result in any advancement of any justice but on the other hand, result in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of the view that Rule 27(c) enables the disciplinary authority to record his findings on the report and to pass an appropriate order including ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of the present nature.” Departmental proceedings being a serious matter cannot be treated casually by the respondents. The delinquent had to face charges. His defence was accepted. He is to be put under scrutiny again without reasons being disclosed to him. The respondents could have differed with the report of exoneration and proceeded for a difference of opinion under Rule 18. The letter dated 17.3.2011 of the Building Construction Department addressed to the Road Constructio

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.