IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2631 of 2002 SHREE KRISHNA CHAUDHARY, son of late Ram Bilash Chaudhary, r/o Mohalla- Patliputra Colony, P.S.- Patliputra District Patna Versus 1. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator, Patna, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 2. Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna Technical Secretariat, Bihar Patna ----------- 10 15-01-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Petitioner stands dismissed from service by impugned order dated 21.4.2001 contained in annexure-9 after a departmental proceeding in which a detailed enquiry was held in respect of the charges contained in annexure-3. The gist of the charges is to the effect that the petitioner who was Service Manager but was working as Incharge Chief of Operations in the Corporation suppressed the fact that one Ramesh Sharma was not in the services of the Corporation even as casual Conductor between the period 1977 till some time in the year 1994 and that as per order of engagement in 1994 he was to be reengaged and placed at the bottom of seniority list of casual Conductors. According to the charges the said Ramesh Sharma, a casual Conductor, was regularized in the services of the Corporation on account of wrong and misleading notes of the petitioner and pressure exerted by him in the matter by taking the file directly to the Managing Director. The charge further alleges that the Chairman of the Corporation got information of the irregularity in regularization of services of Ramesh Sharma and he passed order to withhold the - 2 - notification of regularization but such order was ignored and wrongly the order of regularization was notified. The enquiry officer one Devottam Verma of Bihar Administrative Service submitted his report finding the charges established against the petitioner. On that basis and after considering petitioner’s comments, the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed by the competent authority on 21.4.2001. On behalf of the petitioner a strong attempt was made to establish that the entire proceeding was motivated and malafide on account of dispute of seniority between the petitioner and one B. P. Sinha who subsequently held the office of Managing Director of the Corporation as Incharge for some time. It appears that subsequently the said B. P. Sinha was appointed as Presenting Officer in the enquiry held against the petitioner. It was a also submitted that the enquiry officer Mr. Devottam Verma, though belonging to another cadre and service, was in lower pay scale than that of the petitioner and hence enquiry conducted by him should be treated as an enquiry by a junior Officer and therefore vitiated in law. So far as the aforesaid submissions are concerned, this court finds that in the writ petition only the Corporation and the Secretary of Transport Department are made respondents and nobody has been impleaded by name to answer allegation of bias or malafide. It is further found that there is no allegation of any bias against the enquiry officer Mr. Devottam Verma and since Mr. Verma was an officer posted in the Corporation on special duty, there could be no question - 3 - of his being junior to the petitioner. Further, if petitioner had any reservation against enquiry by Mr. Verma on the ground that he was a junior officer he should have raised his grievance at the appropriate time instead of raising this issue after the enquiry report went against him. Another important point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that rules of natural justice were not fully observed in course of the enquiry because a co-delinquent, Ramesh Sharma, was not allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner and the person who was Managing Director in the year 1994 when Ramesh Sharma was permitted to be taken in service as a casual Conductor was not called as a witness although a request for that was made by the petitioner. To this allegation, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that Ramesh Sharma being a co-delinquent refused to be cross-examined and this fact has been noted in the order- sheet which was produced before this court. He further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on that account because no statement of Ramesh Sharma has been used against him as would be clear from perusal of the enquiry report and the impugned order. It was further submitted that only for verifying the facts already available in the records relating to the year 1994 the enquiry officer rightly did not deem necessary to call the then Managing Director as a witness and this has also not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. This court has considered the nature of the charges and the materials discussed by the enquiry officer which is largely - 4 - documentary in nature and it is found that there was no necessity to examine the then Managing Director as a witness only for putting questions in relation to the facts available in the records. The records being documentary evidence have rightly been given more credibility than any oral deposition that could have come from the then Managing Director. Further, the facts of 1994 were not very relevant in the context of charges under enquiry. It is further found that petitioner has failed to prove any prejudice on account of aforesaid grievance that the Managing Director was not examined as a witness. By way of last submission it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was to superannuate from service on 30.9.2001, that is just after five months of the impugned order dated 21.4.2001 and he had blemishless service hence, the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charges and extremely harsh. In reply, learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance upon paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that on the direction of the State Government petitioner was displaced from the post of Controller, Purchase and Stores and the Accountant General, Bihar was requested by the State Government through letter dated 21.2.1997 to hold an enquiry. The Corporation had also sent such letter to the Accountant General, Bihar on 7.7.1997 and ultimately a FIR was lodged in Kotwali police station against the petitioner for irregularities committed during the period he was posted as Chief of Operations and charge sheet was also issued vide memo dated 31.8.2002. - 5 - In view of aforesaid statement in the counter affidavit, this court does not find the impugned order to be shocking to judicial conscience. Hence, this court finds no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)