IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6557 of 2001 MD. HAKIM KHAN, son of late Budhi Kha, resident of village Amarpur, P.S. Kowakol, District Nawada … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna (New Secretariat) 3. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Nawada 4. Commissioner Magadh Division, Gaya 5. District Superintendent of Education, Nawada 6. Block Extension Education Officer, Gobindpur, District Nawadah 7. Area Education Officer, Hisua, Nawada, District Nawada … Respondents ----------- 3. 26.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This writ application is for quashing the order dated 7.12.2000 passed by respondent no.4 Commissioner Magadh Division Gaya in service Appeal No. 22/2000 and punishment imposed against the petitioner under memo no. 1226 Nawada dated 29th March, 2000 by District Superintendent of Education, Nawada respondent no.5.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding by a specific memo of charge dated 17.10.1997 and 2 was also placed under suspension on 9.3.1998 in course of departmental enquiry, an order of punishment passed against him by the District Superintendent of Education by way of warning/ stoppage of one increment without any cumulative effect and stoppage of payment of salary beyond subsistence allowance for the period 9.3.1998 to 29.3.2000 would be wholly unsustainable, inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report dated 27.5.1998 had fully exonerated the petitioner and yet the disciplinary authority without differing with the findings in the enquiry report and/or giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has passed such impugned order of punishment. In this context he has also assailed the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of the Division on the ground that the view recorded by him to the extent that the appointing authority is not bound to accept the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Counsel for the State would not 3 join issues on the factual narration made by the petitioner, inasmuch as he does not deny that in the enquiry report the petitioner was given a clean chit by the Enquiry Officer and yet the disciplinary authority without giving notice and/or opportunity of hearing had chosen to inflict punishment on the petitioner. He, however, would submit that there are certain materials which were taken into account while the petitioner was placed under suspension and those materials were not looked into by the Enquiry Officer while submitting his enquiry report and therefore the disciplinary authority was not bound to accept those findings recorded in favour of the petitioner. He would, therefore, submit that actually there are some materials which were taken into consideration for holding the petitioner guilty and in this regard he has also referred to the report of the Area Education Officer, Nawadah dated 26th September, 1997 and that of Block Education Extension Officer dated 15.9.1997, Annexure „A‟ and „B‟ to the counter affidavit. In the opinion of this Court while 4 the view taken by the Divisional Commissioner the appeal can have no exception in law inasmuch as he is absolutely correct that the disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the finding given by the Enquiry Officer but then if such findings had the effect of exonerating the delinquent from the charges and the disciplinary authority for the reasons to be recorded had chosen to differ from such findings given in the enquiry report he had to give at least his tentative reasons in a show cause notice by way of an opportunity to the delinquent before taking a decision to punish him. That is how the law has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84. Thus, when there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner for the following six charges: ÞØekad vkjksi dk fooj.k 01- vki fo|ky; fu;fer :i ls ugha vkrs gS rFkk fo|ky; ls ges'kk vuqifLFkr jgrs gS rFkk okn esa mifLFkr gksdj mifLFkfr ntZ dj ysrs gSA 02- vki lgk;d f'kf{kdk Jherh ljkstuh esgrk dks vuko”;d :i ls rax djrs gSA mudk vkdfLed vodk”k ,oa fo”ks’k vodk”k dh Lohd`fr ugha dj ijs”kku djrs gSA 03- fo|ky; dk f”k{kd mifLFkfr iath vki vius ikl j[krs gS] ftlls vkidh vuqifLFkfr esa os viuh mifLFkfr ntZ ugha dj ikrh gSA 5 04- vkids mij iks’kkgkj forj.k es Hkkjh vfu;ferrk ojrus dk vkjksi tkap izfrosnu ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA 05- ¼d½ ekg Qjojh] 97 dk iks’kkgkj dk mBko 7-8-97 dks gh fd;k x;k] ftls Nk=ksa ds chp forfjr u dj cktkj esa osap fn;k x;k gSA ¼[k½ ekg twu] 97 dk iks’kkgkj 2-9-97 dks mBk;k x;k] ftls os jk/kks ikloku ds edku esa j[kk x;k ftldk forj.k fd;k x;k vFkok ugha] bldh iqf’V gsrq iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk LVksd iath ,oa foj.k iath ;g dgdj ugha fn[kk;k x;k fd lEcfU/kr iath iz0 f”k0 iz0 inkf/kdkjh ds ikl gS] tcfd iz0f”k0 izlkj inkf/kdkjh ds ikl ugha gSA blls Li’V gksrk gS fd iks’kkgkj forj.k ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlds otg ls vfHkys[k ugha fn;k x;kA ¼x½ tkap ds Øe esa@ mifLFkr Nk=@Nk=kvksa ,oa xzkeh.kks us ork;k fd Qjojh 97 esa gh flQZ iks’kkgkj dk forj.k fd;k x;k gSA bl i”pkr iks’kkgkj dk forj.k ugha gqvk gSA ¼?k½ iz/kuk/;kid }kjk 282 Nk=ksa dk iks’kkgkj xyr mifLFkfr vafdr dj mBk;k djrs gS] tcfd tkap ds Øe esa 282 Nk=ksa dk fo|ky; esa gksus dk izek.k ugha feyrk gSA o’kZ 1996 esa ek= 51 Nk= dk gh okf’kZd ijh{kk esa lEefyr gq;s gS tks bl izdkj gS oxZ 1&24] oxZ 2&41 oxZ 3_13] oxZ 4&6 ,oa oxZ 5 esa 4 dqy 41 Nk= A blls Li’V gksrk gS fd foHkkx dks /kks[kk/kMh ,oa tkylkth dj iks’kkgkj dk mBko djrs vk;s gSA 06- Nk=ksa ds mRrj iqfLrdk dh tkap ugha dh x;h gS ijUrq ijh{kk Qy iath esa vad vafdr gS] tkap ds nkSjku fcuk ewY;kadu ds mRrj iqfLrdk iz/kkuk/;kid ds ikl ik;k x;k v/kZokf’kZd ijh{kk 1997 esa dqy 129 Nk= ijh{kk esa 'kkfey gq;s gS] ftldk Hkh mRrj iqfLrdk dh tkap ugha dh x;h gS vkSj vad ijh{kk Qy iath esa vafdr gSA lHkh fcuk tkap dh mRrj iqfLrdk {ksa0 f”k0 inkf/kdkjh ds ikl lqjf{kr j[kk x;k gSAÞ in spite of a favourable finding of the enquiry officer: Þfu’dZ’k %& ¼1½ jksg ds xzkeh.kks dh xokgh ,oa f”k{kd }kjk izLrqr Li’Vhdj.k rFkk lk{; ls Li’V gksrk gS fd eks[k [kka fu;fer :i ls fo|ky; esa mifLFkr jgdj fo|ky; dk;Z lEiknu djrs jgs gSA ftlls Li’V gksrk gS fd f”k{kd fo|ky; ls vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkr ugha jgrs gSA ¼2½ Jh [kka }kjk vius lgkf;dk Jherh ljkstuh esgrk dks muds vko”;drkuqlkj fo|ky; fLFkfr dks n`f’Vxr j[kdj vodk'k Lohd`r djrs jgs gS ftlls Li’V gksrk gS fd f”kf{kdk dk vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA ¼3½ f”k{kd }kjk izLrqr lwpuk iqfLrdk ds voyksdu ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd vko”;d vfHkys[kks dk izhkkj lkSaidj gh Jh [kka fo|ky; NksM+rs jgs gSA ¼4½ xzkeh.kksa ds O;ku ,oa iks’kkgkj ds iaft;ksa ds 6 voyksdu ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd f”k{kd us foHkkxh; funs”kkuqlkj 80 izfr”kr mifLFkr cPpksa dks ftldh lwph oxZ izHkkjh f”k{kdks us iz0v0 dks nh tkrh jgh gS dk iks’kkgkj mBk;k gS rFkk x.kekU; xzkeh.kksa dh mifLFkfr esa vius lgk;dks ,oa xzkeh.kksa ds lg;ksx ls fo|ky; es ;k Jh jk/kks ikloku ds ?kj ds ikl forj.k fd;k gSA xsgw¡ forj.k esa vfu;ferrk ugha ojrh xbZ tks iks’kkgkj HkaMkjiath ,oa forj.k iath ls Li’V gksrk gSA ¼5½ ekg tuojh 97 dk iks’kkgkj 7 fDoVy 47 fdyks dk mBko vkSj forj.k lgk;d f”k{kd }kjk fd;k x;k gS vr% egk Qjojh 97 esa 6 fDoaVy 75 fdyks rFkk twu 97 es 8 fDoaVy 58 fdyks iks’kkgkj dk mBko ,oa forj.k mfpr gh izrhr gksrk gSA ekg Qjojh 97 dk xsg¡ o’kkZ ekSle ds e/; es mBk;k x;k gS ftlls fu;r le; ij forj.k dh ok/kk Muk laHko gS fQj Hkh ekg twu 97 ds lkFk gh egk Qjojh 97 dk iks’kkgkj xzkeh.kksa ds dFkukuqlkj fo|ky; Nkouh /oLr jgus ds dkj.k xzkeh.k jk/kks ikloku ds ?kj ij j[kdj forj.k djuk vuqfpr ugha gS lkFk gh f”k{kd ij ncax yksxksa }kjk voS/k cPpksa dk xsgw¡ nsus dk Hkh nokc Mkyk tkrk gSA ¼6½ forj.k iqfLrdk ¼iks’kkgkj½ ds voyksdu ls Li’V gksrk gS fd iz0f”k0iz0 ink0 xksfoUniqj us bldk voyksdu fd;k gS ,slk izfrr gksrk gs fd lq{ke fujh{k.k ds fy;s inkf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkys[k tIr fd;k x;k ftlls ;s nwljs tkap inkf/kdkjh {ks= f”k{kk ink0 uokn esa ugha fn[kyk ldsA ¼7½ ;g lR; gS fd fo|ky; dk;Z dk lEiknu lHkh f”k{kd fey dj djrs gS vr% Nk+=ksaifLFkfr vkSj mRrj iqfLrkdkvksa ds ewY;kadu es vfu;ferrk ojrus dk vkjksi dsoy iz/kku f”k{kd ij yxkuk mfpr izfrr ugha gksrk gSAÞ had gone to pass an order of punishment without giving any show cause notice disclosing the reasons for differing with the aforementioned findings in the enquiry report, this Court has no option but to hold that both the order of punishment and the consequential appellate order are bad in law and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of punishment, as contained in Annexure 2 and its appellate order (Annexure 1) are hereby quashed. As few charges out of six are related to financial irregularity and/or may amount to gross misconduct in terms of Rule 7 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules this Court even after being made aware that the petitioner has already retired from service in the year 2004, during the pendency of this writ application, would remit the matter back to the District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah to proceed from the stage of giving a show cause notice to the petitioner. The District Superintendent of Education having placed the whole matter before the District Education Establishment Committee will obtain prior approval of the proposal for proceeding afresh against the petitioner and would thereafter give a show cause notice disclosing the reasons for differing with the findings in the enquiry report. The petitioner upon receipt of such show cause notice will be obliged to file his reply and thereafter the competent authority, namely, District Education Establishment Committee headed by the Collector of the District would take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and if it is found that the petitioner was guilty of any of the charges, it would be also open for the authority to pass an 8 appropriate order as contemplated under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Any financial benefit of the petitioner would, therefore, abide by the result of fresh order to be passed by the authority as indicated above. In other words, for the present the petitioner will not be paid any amount of salary or increment, that was withheld but then the said decision must be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Subject to the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/