IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8684 of 2000 SYED ABDUR RAHEEM son of late M A Hakim Resident of Mohalla – Mulla Haleem Khan, PO & PS Darbhanga,District Darbhanga…….. Petitioner Versus 1.REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 2. The District Judge, Darbhanga 3. Shri Sadashiv Rao, Enquiry Officer, Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Benipur, Darbhanga 4. Judge in Charge, Civil Court,Darbhanga 5. The Registrar, Civil Court, Darbhanga ………..Respondents ----------- 07- 21.04.2009 Heard Ms. Anjana Mishra for the petitioner, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate No.IX for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.99 (Annexure 17), passed by respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of a departmental proceeding. Respondent nos.2 and 4 have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was a class III employee working in the civil court at Darbhanga under respondent no.2. He was twice subjected to departmental proceedings. Validity of the second proceeding is in question in the present writ petition. In so far as the first one is concerned, by order dated 28.6.90 (Annexure 2) passed by respondent no.2, the punishment of deprivation of two increments was inflicted on him, and he was deprived of salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The petitioner had thereafter filed an application dated 18.4.94 (Annexure - 2 - –A), requesting therein to update his pay adding his annual increment till date and pass necessary orders in this regard. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 11.9.06 (Annexure 6), whereby the following charge was framed against him :- “And, WHEREAS from the preliminary enquiry in the matter it appears that you (Syed Abdur Rahim) had forged your service records in this regard by cutting the order relating the amount in increments when you are in possession of your service book, and had caused disappearance of entire file of your aforesaid departmental enquiry and that papers such as office order of award of punishment and its copies.” 2.1) The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dt. 15.2.97 (Annexure 7). Respondent no.4 was appointed the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared during the course of enquiry proceeding, witnesses were examined, and documents were brought on record leading to the enquiry report dated 27.5.99 (Annexure 12), whereby he was found guilty of two charges. This was followed by the second show-cause notice dated 24.7.99 (Annexure 16), whereby he was called upon to show-cause within 15 days as to why the punishment of dismissal from service be not inflicted on him. It appears that the petitioner had not shown cause to the same leading to the impugned order of punishment whereby he has been dismissed from service. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report is bad in law because the procedure was not followed, copies of the depositions were not supplied, opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the Establishment was not afforded to the petitioner, - 3 - copies of the documents were not supplied and various dates during the course of enquiry proceeding were not communicated to him. She relies on the following reported judgments :- (i) 2000(1) SCC 416 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashi Kant S Patil) (ii) AIR 1974 SC 2335 (State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram) (iii) 2000 (2) PLJR 85 (Dilip Kumar Singh vs.State of Bihar) Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the enquiry report is also bad in law because of the redundant and profuse references to the previous enquiry proceedings. It is next contended that the second show-cause notice was not served on him which he learnt from the communication dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure 14), which described him as a dismissed employee. It is lastly submitted that the cuttings in the service record are genuine because the same is shown to have been duly certified by respondent no.4. 4. Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner is a habitual delinquent. He did not improve even though lenient view was taken on the previous occasion. He next submits that the prescribed procedure was followed and the principles of Natural Justice were fully observed. He next submits that the expansive arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner overlooked the limited scope of interference in writ jurisdiction. He also submits that the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding, abstained only towards the end of the proceedings and, therefore, copies of the - 4 - depositions need not be supplied to him. He also submits that copy of the enquiry report was duly forwarded to him. He lastly submits that the second show-cause notice could be served on him after the seventh attempt, and he had not shown cause to the same. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears on a perusal of the order of punishment passed on the previous occasion, that on the findings of the enquiry officer, he could have been dismissed from service. Respondent no.2 had taken a lenient view of the matter in the hope so that he may improve in future. The relevant portion of the order (Annexure 2) is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- “ I have again considered the charges against Shri Abdur Rahim which has been established from the evidence beyond doubt. Shri Abdul Rahim is guilty of demanding Rs.400/- from Shri Nagendra Nilambar for tracing out the missing record and that he was paid Rs.300/- by said Shri Nagendra Nilambar and a sum of Rs.100/- was to be paid to him subsequently. Shri Abdur Rahim is further guilty of forging the bail order by writing it and signing for the court. It is a case of gross misconduct on the part of Shri Abdur Rahim. The established charges and the conduct which Shri Abdul Rahim has shown from the beginning to end during the enquiry and thereafter, given ground to hold that severe punishment like dismissal should be the only punishment to such Government Employee which may be a lesson to other, but in view of his long period of service, lesser punishment like withholding of two increments in pay and debarring from getting any further pay and allowances other than what is admissible to a suspended Government Employee during the period of suspension, will meet the ends of justice in this case.” I am quite convinced that the petitioner was let off very lightly on the previous occasion by taking a very lenient view, - 5 - notwithstanding which he did not bring about improvement in himself leading to the present departmental proceeding. 6. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to the Record Room which he must have found very frustrating. It appears on a perusal of the enquiry report that, instead of bringing about improvement in himself, he seems to have made attempts to defeat the order of punishment on the previous occasion leading to interpolation with his service records. He attempted to pen through the entries with respect to the previous order of punishment in his service record. A photocopy of the service record after interference is on record. It appears that the same has been done very crudely, the portions beyond recognition penned through is unreadable, and has been surrounded by a line round it. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to capitalize on the signature of respondent no.4 with the date 10.7.90, with another signature side by side of the date tenth July written in figures, which appear just below the line encircling the interpolation. I have not the slightest manner of doubt that these two signatures do not certify penning through of the entry of the punishment, the same appear to be certification of the entry of earlier punishment. Secondly, this is an issue of fact which ought to have been raised before the learned enquiry officer. 7. It further appears that the petitioner had appeared in the course of departmental proceeding, and the Establishment had examined the witnesses in his presence. He had, therefore, full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The question of supply of - 6 - copies of depositions may perhaps have arisen if he had not participated in the departmental proceeding. He had the option noting down the depositions while the same were being recorded, or to apply to apply for certified copy of the same. In any view of the matter, the petitioner has not brought to my notice any contemporaneous material to show that he had submitted written application before the learned Enquiry Officer that he was not being allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, or that he may be supplied with the certified copy of the depositions. These objections are self-serving statements and seem to be the ingenuity of the counsel at the present stage. The contention is rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised serious objections to the effect that the learned Enquiry Officer has made most redundant and profuse references to the previous departmental proceeding. The contention is stated to be rejected. The present proceeding is a sequel to the first one. Secondly, the punishment meted out on the previous occasion will have a bearing on the punishment proposed to be given in the present proceeding. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that second show-cause notice was not served on him, and he had learnt of the same from the aforesaid communication dated 25.5.2000 (Annexure 14). The contention is stated only to be rejected. The respondents have placed details in their counter affidavit as to the mode and manner in which altogether six attempts were made to serve copy of the second show-cause notice to the petitioner which he - 7 - purposely evaded, and was ultimately served on the seventh occasion which has been duly certified by the Assistant Post Master of the concerned post office. The second show-cause notice was undoubtedly served on the petitioner and he chose not to submit any reply to the same. Furthermore, law is well settled that it is not imperative for the employer to serve the second show-cause notice. No provision of law has been brought to my notice which has been violated or not followed, during the course of departmental proceeding. 10. Learned Government Advocate is right in his submission that the scope of interference in exercise of powers of judicial review is very limited. It is not a court of appeal. This Court can in writ jurisdiction generally interfere only in certain circumstances, namely, where the prescribed procedure has not been followed, well formulated charges were not served on the petitioner, Principles of natural justice were not observed, and the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges which shocks the conscience of the court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced that the petitioner has not been able to establish any infirmity in the departmental proceeding. The order of punishment is well merited. The petitioner had on earlier occasion been punished for serious charges, and the District Judge had taken an exceptionally lenient view, perhaps in the hope that the petitioner shall improve but the hopes were belied. Furthermore, in order to defeat the first order of punishment, the petitioner engaged himself in the machination leading - 8 - to the present order of dismissal. The punishment is well-merited and fully justified. 11. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) mrl