IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7093 of 2010 Ram Sunder Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is a Panchyat Sewak aggrieved by an inquiry report dated 5.9.2008 holding him partially guilty for large scale irregularities in the selection of beneficiaries under Special Indira Awas Yojana, Bakhari Block in the year 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present was a third inquiry in serial. The mater was earlier considered in a departmental enquiry for the same allegations and by enquiry report dated 24.12.2005 he was exonerated. If it was not acceptable to the respondents they had the liberty to proceed on a difference of opinion after giving him a second show cause notice on specified grounds. Merely because the enquiry report may not have been to their liking it did not vest the power in them to ignore the same and direct a fresh inquiry. Even in the second inquiry report dated 14.10. 2006 the petitioner was exonerated. The fact that petitioner was then subjected to a third inquiry more than apparently manifests that the respondents were proceeding in a manner for repeated enquiries till a report of their satisfaction of guilt against him was not received. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 20 (Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar & ors). The malalfide of the respondents against the petitioner 2 is further reflected in the concurrent findings in all the three inquiry reports that the B.D.O. himself was not above board in the entire episode. The petitioner had taken a defence that he had acted under instructions of the B.D.O. Notwithstanding the same a different yard stick has been applied to the B.D.O. who has not been proceeded with. Counter affidavit has been filed by the subsequent B.D.O. which the court finds of absolutely no help in adjudication. On the previous hearing the court had queried the status with regard to the findings in the enquiry report vis a vis the B.D.O. Counsel for the State files a fresh counter affidavit today on behalf of the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It is stated that while charges were made first against the petitioner on 29.8. 2005, charges were framed against the B.D.O. on 13.6.2005. Unfortunately the counter affidavit is completely silent on what finally happened to the departmental proceeding against the B.D.O. It also takes the stand of a first information report having been lodged against the B.D.O. No details have been disclosed with regard to the substance of the allegations and as to who were the accused therein or was there a singular accused. What is the status of the first information report has also not been disclosed. The court is disappointed by the manner in which the counter affidavit has been filed giving it the clear impression of a positive attitude for suppressing and deliberately withholding relevant information from the court in an effort to protect some one. 3 In the case of Rakesh Kumar Sinha (Supra) an inquiry report of exoneration had been submitted. The order directing fresh inquiry did not disclose any reasons. Reliance was placed in the subsequent enquiry on materials collected in the previous enquiry. In that back ground this court held that there could not be a fresh inquiry without sufficient justification. If the material was available in the earlier inquiry report to form opinion for the next enquiry, surely material for a difference of opinion from the first inquiry report was itself available. The judgment has to be read and understood in the context of that factual background. In the present case the first inquiry report in no uncertain terms states that the B.D.O. did not appear to depose and necessary documents were not produced before the enquiry officer . The discussion is virtually in the form of the memo of the charges and the defence of the petitioner. The inquiry officer appears to have become a witness himself by collecting evidence to hold that the charges were not proved. The whole procedure appears to have been highly improper. If the enquiry report was itself disclosing that materials in support of the allegations were not placed by the prosecution leading to exoneration, no further material is required to hold that a de novo enquiry was fully justified. The second inquiry report dated 14.10. 2006 likewise states that the District Panchayat Raj Officer was informed to produce the records with regard to the allegations. It never came to be produced. The B.D.O. was also asked to produce evidence and depose on behalf of the prosecution. He never did so. The 4 B.D.O. appeared on 26.9.2006 but did not make any deposition or place materials with regard to the allegation much less did he produce any document. The Head Assistant and the Assistant appeared to depose and gave in writing that they were not in a position to produce any documentary evidence. In fact they stated that there were no records available in the office for the Special Indira Awas Yojana. They had no idea as to who prepared the cheque and disbursed it. The Block Nazir only deposed that it was on the instruction of the B.D.,O. the cheques for specific amount were prepared and who alone disbursed the same. Again the inquiry officer on the basis of charge and the defence produced proceeded to decide the matters holding alike the first inquiry report that the B.D.O. could not be absolved of his responsibility holding petitioner partially guilty. At this stage counsel for the petitioner submits that in the penultimate sentence there is complete exoneration. Like wise in the third inquiry report dated 5.9.2008, the finding is that the B.D.O. who is the head of the institution himself did not depose but that cannot absolve the petitioner of his responsibility also. The petitioner should have brought the misdeeds of the B.D.O. to the attention of authorities. The submission therefore, is of a procedural administrative lapse only. The B.D.O. is stated to have been proceeded with also. The allegations against him and the petitioner are with regard to the same transaction and events. The petitioner appears to be trying to shift the blame on the B.D.O. The court does not have 5 the benefit of what stand was taken by the B.D.O. in the proceeding against him much less what conclusions have been arrived at. Once proceedings have been started against the petitioner and the B.D.O. both, dependant on the out come of the same there shall have to be parity in treatment unless the circumstances warrant otherwise. There is no occasion for the court to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioner at this stage. If the departmental inquiry against the B.D.O. is still pending, fairness on the part of the respondents require it to be concluded forthwith if not already done and then on the basis of the findings arrived at proceed to finalize the proceedings against the petitioner. The court, therefore, declines any interference with the inquiry report and disposes the writ application with a direction to conclude the departmental proceeding in the aforesaid manner at the earliest. The application stands disposed. M.Rahman (Navin Sinha, J)