IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.778 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 3. The Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 5. The Engineer-in-Chief, Central, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Chief Engineer-cum-Enquiry Officer, Central Design Office, Water Resources Department, Bisomaun Tower, Patna 7. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar 8. The Superintendent Engineer, Water Resource Department, Irrigation Circle, Batiya, Munger ........... Appellants/Respondents Versus BISHESHWAR MISHRA, son of Late Anirudh Mishra, Resident of Village + P.O. Bangaon, District Saharsa ........... Respondent/Petitioner ----------- 04- 21/6/2011 Heard Mr. Sourendra Pandey, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.23 for the appellants, and Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay for the respondent. The State of Bihar and its functionaries have preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, and are aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2010, whereby CWJC No. 16436 of 2001 (Bisheswar Mishra vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed, the order of punishment against the writ petitioner has been set aside, and the State Government has been denied the liberty to conduct the departmental proceeding afresh. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The respondent herein (the writ 2 petitioner) was posted as Executive Engineer in 1998-99 in Ganga Pump Canal Division No.2. Charge-sheet was served on him for misappropriation of government property including steel rods. The learned enquiry officer submitted his report dated 9.11.2000, holding him guilty of the charge. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government on 31.7.99, and the departmental proceeding by automatic operation of law was converted into one under rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules. The learned disciplinary authority agreed with the enquiry report, and passed the order of punishment on 30.6.2001, whereby he directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 5 lacs from the respondent. This led to departmental appeal, whereafter a writ petition, and appeal in this Court bearing LPA no.165 of 2009. The appeal in this Court was allowed, the order of the learned single Judge was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the earlier writ court for fresh decision in accordance with law. 3. In so far as the present writ petition, namely, CWJC No. 16436 of 2001, is concerned, the same is directed against the order of punishment. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the departmental authorities did not produce any evidence at all in support of the charges. He has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the findings in the enquiry report are entirely inferential and has, therefore, set aside the enquiry report as well as the order of punishment. As to the conclusion whether or not the State Government should be given another opportunity to conduct the proceeding under the Bihar Pension Rules 3 afresh, the prayer has been rejected with the following observations:- “The departmental proceedings were started against the petitioner in the year 1999. He has superannuated on 31.7.1999. It is the Department which has acted in a lackadaisical manner, unmindful of its obligations to protect the interest of the Government and seeks to cast the burden for its own deficiency on the petitioner. Had there been procedural impropriety in the departmental proceedings, even at this late stage the Court may have considered the issue of remand, but when there has been no departmental proceeding whatsoever in the eyes of law and today the petitioner is approximately 72 years of age and in view of the further facts that the writ petition came to be allowed when it came to be remanded by the Division Bench when the petitioner at the appellate stage had also sought to assail the proceedings on merits which were directed to be considered by the learned single Judge, all these issues persuade this Court to hold that it is not a fit case for remand simpliciter.” We agree with the reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge while rejecting the prayer advanced on behalf of the State of Bihar for fresh opportunity. 4. There is another aspect of the matter in support of the order of the learned single Judge. Neither the citizen nor the authorities have the liberty to misuse the machinery provided by the State for redressal of grievances. In this context, the following portion of the book by Fali S. Nariman, entitled `India’s Legal System : Can it be saved”, is relevant:- “ More than one hundred years ago, a law member in the Government of India (Hobhouse) recorded in a minute dated 5 September 1872 (on the Bill leading to the Privy Council Appeal Act, 1874) the following observation: In considering what limit should be assigned to the power of appealing, our leading maxim is, that it is the interest of the commonwealth to have and end of law suits. No man has a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wishes. The State’s duty is discharged when it has provided such a reasonable amount of attention and skill and honesty as will satisfy reasonable men that their 4 causes have been decided, erroneously or otherwise, on the merits, and according to the best ability of the judge, and so will prevent them from feeling that resentment of sheer injustice which drives people to take the law into their hands and to wage private war. Upon this principle all laws place some limits to litigation. And so have we placed limits to the power of appealing. Pithily put, and elegantly phrased. The portion about no man having a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wished was quoted by Justice Gajendragadkar (who later became Chief Justice of India) in one of the early reports of the Law Commission of India, but despite what was so wisely said by Mr. Hobhouse and again by Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, our laws continue to provide (by way of appeals, reviews and revisions) unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get private affairs ultimately settled. For instance, we have now abolished second appeals, and yet lawyers go on arguing endlessly about the maintainability of intra-court under special laws.” In the present case, the departmental authorities had adequate opportunity to conduct the proceeding as per the established procedure and produce evidence in support of charges, in which they completely failed. The learned single Judge has rightly observed in the order in question the relevant portion of which has been set out hereinabove that the department acted in a lackadaisical manner. After the learned disciplinary authority passed order of punishment, the matter has been in court by way of different proceedings for a period covering one decade. This is undoubtedly drawing far more than needed draughts on the time and money of the public, and we consider it to be gross abuse of the process of the court on the part of the department. Once the Court is satisfied that the concerned party had adequate opportunity to establish his case, he/it cannot be allowed to misuse the official machinery which can only be at the cost and the detriment of 5 the rest whose matters are pending in Court. 5. There is another facet of the same matter. It is difficult to give another opportunity to the State also in view of the growing pendency in courts in India. I am reminded of the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Bibek Debroy in his book entitled `In the Dock: Absurdities of Indian Law’, that the pending litigations in this country without any addition thereto, will take 324 years for disposal. These observations were made more than two decades ago, and the situation has further deteriorated. A learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in one of his speeches recently has observated that it will now take 350 years or so to dispose of the pending cases. 6. In such a situation, we agree with the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) ( Amaresh Kumar Lal ) mrl