IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.963 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10923 of 2006 ====================================================== Kedar Nath Ram, son of late Tileshwar Ram, resident of Mohalla Road No. 12, Rajeev Nagar, Patna-14, P.S. Digha, Distt. Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Finance Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Tax, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Under Secretary, Finance (Commercial Tax), Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pradeep Kumar-I with Mr. Phulendra Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajeet Kumar, A.C. to Advocate General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 11-07-2011 With the consent of the learned Advocates, this appeal is heard and decided today. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 9th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above Patna High Court LPA No.963 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 2 CWJC No.10923 of 2006. At the relevant time the appellant was serving as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Munger. On reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31st July 2003. Prior to his retirement, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 14th July 2001. He was alleged to have committed acts of commission and omission amounting to misconduct. The appellant replied the said chargesheet on 1st April 2002. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding held against the appellant, out of the seven articles of charge, the charge no.3 was held to be proved. Charge nos.1, 5 and 7 were held to be partially proved. Charge nos.2, 4 and 6 were held not proved. For the charges proved against the appellant, by order dated 23rd May 2004, he was visited with punishment of 25% deduction in pension. The said order was confirmed in departmental appeal on 31st May 2005. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 10923 of 2006. The learned single Judge has, by the impugned judgment and order dated 9th March 2011, dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Pradeep Kumar-I has appeared for the appellant. He has assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge. He has submitted that the order of punishment of reduction in pension imposed upon the appellant under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 was totally unwarranted. He has submitted that the charges levelled against the appellant were vague, no enquiry could be conducted nor the punishment could have been imposed for such vague charges. Patna High Court LPA No.963 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 3 Learned Advocate Mr. Ajeet Kumar has appeared for the respondents. He submits that the appellant did understand the nature of the charges and he effectively put forth his defence. The appellant, therefore, can not be permitted to raise the objection as to the vagueness of the charges at this belated stage. He has submitted that if at all the charges were vague, the appellant ought to have raised such objection at the very first opportunity. Had the objection been raised at the first opportunity, the defect in the articles charge could have been cured. He has further submitted that the appellant is found guilty of acts of commission and omission amounting to misconduct which resulted in the loss to the exchequer of the State. He has submitted that the appellant did reply to the articles of charge. That proves that the appellant understood the charges levelled against him. On proof the alleged misconduct, he is appropriately punished. In support of his submission, Mr. Ajit Kumar has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of “State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723]” and of “Biecco Lawrie Limited & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal [2009 (10) SCC 32]”. Neither of these decisions relates to the disciplinary proceeding in respect of the vague charges and, therefore, neither of them shall apply to the facts of the present case. We shall presently see as to whether the charges levelled against the appellant were vague; whether such charges were capable of being answered. In our opinion the charges levelled against the appellant were absolutely vague. No enquiry could have been conducted in respect of such vague charges. Consequently, the order of punishment based on the vague Patna High Court LPA No.963 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 4 charges cannot be sustained. As we have observed hereinabove, out of the seven articles of charge levelled against the appellant, only charge no.3 was held proved and three charges namely, charge nos. 1, 5 and 7 were held partially proved. The rest were not proved. Let us examine the nature of charges held to be proved or partially proved against the appellant. Charge no.1 relates to issuance of Road Permits to the traders of onion and potato without charging penalty. It was alleged that the traders were thus permitted to misuse the Road Permits. There is no mention of place or period of misconduct or particulars of the beneficiaries. In charge no.3, it is alleged that the Road Permits issued by the appellant were not in proportion to the total sales tax recovered and the Road Permits were not issued inconsonance with the provisions made in that behalf. In this charge also except the above charge, no particulars have been stated including the period and place of the alleged acts of misconduct or the names of the beneficiaries. Similar is the allegation under charge no.5 relating to the recovery of sales tax and issuance of Road Permits without giving particulars of place, period or any other particulars. Under the charge no.7, the appellant is alleged to have committed acts of misconduct in relation to issue of Road Permits to the traders of onion and potato since the year 1974 without giving further particulars. In our opinion, the approach of the respondents is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. In a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant, minimal compliance of principles of natural justice requires: Patna High Court LPA No.963 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 5 (i) That the delinquent is given precise charge under enquiry. (ii) The delinquent is furnished all the relevant materials relied upon to establish the imputation of charge. (iii) The delinquent is given opportunity to reply to the articles of charge. (iv) The delinquent is given adequate opportunity to put forth his defence including production of documents and examination of witnesses. In the present case the very first requirement of furnishing a precise charge has not been met. We believe that the statement of charges and the accompanying materials is the foundation of any disciplinary proceeding. Infarction of the said requirement will destroy the entire edifice constructed over it. In other words, the subsequent stages of disciplinary proceeding can not be sustained if the very foundation is weak or hollow. In the present case, as we have recorded hereinabove, the very foundation is hollow. The initiation of disciplinary proceeding on totally vague statement of charge shall vitiate the entire disciplinary proceeding and the consequential order of punishment. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 9th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 10923 of 2006 is set aside. CWJC No.10923 of 2006 is allowed. The order of punishment dated 23rd May 2005 imposing punishment of 25 percent reduction in pension is quashed and set aside. Patna High Court LPA No.963 of 2011 (2) dt.11-07-2011 6 Consequently, the appellate order dated 31st August 2006 is also set aside. The appellant will be restored the full pension forthwith. The appellant will be paid the arrears of pension from the date of the impugned order dated 23rd May 2005 till the date as early as possible but not later than three months from today. In the event the arrears of pension is not paid within three months as directed, the appellant will be entitled to interest on the amount of arrears @ 10 percent per annum commencing from the date of this order till the date of payment. M. Rahman/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)