IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9683 of 2003 SHATRUGHAN CHAUDHARY, Son of Sri Ganesh Chaudhary, resident of village Udhaura, p.S. Masaurhi, in the district of Patna, at present posted as Chief Head Warder, at Central Jail, Gaya. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Home (Jail) Department, Patna-15. 3.The Inspector General of Prisons, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 5 11/1/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing the orders vide memo no.2439 dated 12.6.1996, (Annexure-4) whereby punishment of stopping of two annual increments with cumulative effect and non-payment of salary beyond the substantive grant during the suspension period has been passed and also for the quashing the Memo No.5870 dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure- 14) whereby the memo of appeal have been rejected by the Inspector General of prisons, Bihar, Patna.” With reference to the aforementioned prayer learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of punishment and its affirmance in the appellate order are unsustainable primarily because the petitioner was not supplied with the relevant documents as was 2 demanded by him in his application dated 30.9.1995 soon after framing of charge on 15.9.1990. He would submit that as because the aforementioned documents were not supplied, the petitioner could not file his written statement of defence and as such the order of punishment in absence of adequate opportunity to defend himself is automatically vitiated. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that it is not the fact that all the charges were passed on certain documents and that the Enquiry Officer has based his findings on those documents. He has, therefore, proceeded that the issue of supply of documents as raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the facts of this case had caused no prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as, he had himself given in writing on 23.1.1998 that he was prepared to face the enquiry so that the same gets disposed of expeditiously. In order to appreciate the issue of non supply of documents one has to go to the charges framed against the petitioner which reads as follows:- “vkjksi&;g fd dsUnhz; dkjk] gtkjhckx eas fnukad 3&9&95 dh jkf= esa dkjk ds vUnj gh Jh ozt fd”kksj ;kno (dSnh) dh gR;k ,d vU; dSnh ds }kjk dj nh x;h] fdUrq fnukad 4&5&95 dks ekuuh; dkjk ea=h dks dsUnzh; dkjk] gtkjhckx ds fujh{k.k ds dze esa ;g cryk;k x;k fd e`r dSnh us rhu fnu iwoZ gh bl /kVuk ds laca/k esa vkils ”adk O;Dr fd;k Fkk A 3 bl laca/k esa u rks Lo;a dksbZ dkjZokbZ dh vkSj u bldh lwpuk vius mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks gh nh tks vkidh drZO;ghurk ,oa ykijokgh dk );ksrd gS A 2&;g fd ml oUnh ds izfr}Unh canh ls vkids }kjk 50@& :0 /kwl ysdj mlds vuqjks/k dks fcYdwy gh utj vUnkt dj fn;k x;k A vkidk ;g d`R; dnkpkj ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj dk );ksrd gS A 3&;g fd vkids }kjk laoaf/kr okMZ ls fnukad 3&5&95 dks xkatk Hkh cjken fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldh lwpuk vkius vius mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ugha nh] cfYd bls vkius vius gh Lrj ls jQk&nQk dj fn;k A ;g vkids dnkpkj ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj dk );ksrd gS A 4&;g fd dkjk gLrd fu;e ds vUrZxr dkjk ds vkUrfjd lqj{kk dh eq[; tokonsgh eq[; d{kiky dh gksrh gS] fdUrq mi;ZDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd mDr gR;k ds "kM;U= dh tkudkjh vkidks igys ls Fkh A fdUrq vkidh feyhHkxr gksus ds dkj.k ;g vugksuh /kVuk ?kVh A ;g vkids fo:n~/k drZO;ghurk] Hkz"Vpkj ,oa dnkpkfjrk dk vkjksi izFke nz"Vok izekf.kr gksrk gS A blds fy;s vkids fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh djus ds fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS A” With regard to these four charges the petitioner had demanded supply of the following documents:- (I)fnukad 4&5&1995 dks ekuuh; ea=h }kjk fd;s x;s fujh{k.k dh izfr% (II)ea=h egksn; dks ftl O;fDr us ;g cryk;k gS fd e`Rrd canh us /kVuk ds laca/k esa rhu fnu igys eq>s lwpuk nh gS] ml O;fDr ds uke rFkk mlds lk{; dh izfr% (III)ftl O;fDr us ;g crk;k gS fd e`Rrd canh ds izfr}Unh canh ls eSus 50@& :0 /kwl fy;k gS] mldk uke rFkk mlds c;ku dh izfr A ;g Hkh lwfpr fd;k tk; fd fdl frfFk dks fdl le; vkSj fdlls /kwl fy;k gS A (IV)ftl O;fDr us xkatk cjken djus ds laca/k esa lwpuk nh gS] mlds c;ku dh izfr% (v)fdl fu;e ds rgr dkjk dh 4 vkUrfjd lqj{kk dh tokonsgh eq[; mPp d{kiky ij gS] D;k dkjkiky rFkk mPp d{kiky ij ;g tokonsgh ugha gS% (VI)mDr canh dh e`R;q ds laca/k esa v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjk] gtkjhckx }kjk dkjk egkfujh{kd] fcgkj dks Hksts x;s izfrosny dh izfr% (VII)mDr canh dh e`R;q ds laca/k esa ;fn dksbZ inkf/kdkjh tSls ogkW ds mik;qDr ;k lekgRrkZ dk;kZy; ds dksbZ n.Mkf/kdkjh tkWp fd;s gSa rks muds izfrosny dh izfr% ,oa (VIII)xokgksa dh lwph A From the aforementioned list of documents it would appear that the petitioner was deliberately trying to delay even in submission of his explanation, inasmuch as, he did not deny that the spot in question was inspected in his presence by the Minister on 14.5.1995 during which certain negligence/misconduct of the petitioner came to be noticed. The petitioner goes on the super technical approach even by asking the departmental authorities as to which Government Rule/Circular made him, in the capacity of Head Warden of Central Jail, responsible for internal security of the prisoners. It however appears that the petitioner subsequently on 19.3.1996 had submitted his explanation in respect of all the four charges when at least he again did not reiterate his earlier line of defence with regard to the job description of Head Warden. In fact, while submitting his defence the petitioner had revealed that he had full 5 knowledge of the prisoner Satish Sah who had filed complaint against him. The petitioner had dealt about the contents of such complaint filed by Satish Sah elaborately as would appear from his explanation in respect of all the four charges which is on the record by way of Annexure-3 to this writ application. From reading of the charges and the explanation furnished by the petitioner it would appear that denial of the documents itself was only reason to delay the departmental proceeding and that is how the petitioner himself had ultimately given in writing to conclude the enquiry vide his application dated 23.1.1999. In such a situation, it cannot be said that non supply of the documents by itself has vitiated the enquiry. The Apex Court in the case of „State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma reported in AIR 1996 SC 1669 has laid down by way of proposition of law that non supply of documents or denial of opportunity to cross examine a witness by itself would not be fatal to the departmental proceeding unless definite prejudice could be established by the delinquent. In the present case, it would appear from the findings recorded by the authorities that they have not relied on any of such documents which were demanded by 6 the petitioner. As a matter of fact when the petitioner himself had accepted that one of the three prisoners in the Cell was not in a sound mental condition, the petitioner in the capacity of Head Warden was under obligation to remove him. For this he did not require any document in the enquiry conducted by the Minister when such allegation was made in presence of the petitioner. If any finding therefore has been recorded on such admitted facts by the Enquiry Officer that again did not require any document. There can be no universal rule that if in the departmental proceeding the documents as may be claimed or demanded by the delinquent are not supplied that by itself would vitiate the entire departmental proceeding and the consequential order of punishment. The moment the petitioner had waived his right and has submitted his explanation as also participated in the enquiry and the disciplinary authority had not relied on any of those documents demanded by the petitioner for passing the order of punishment, it cannot be held that the order of punishment would be bad only because of non supply of documents. Let it be made clear that no other procedural infirmity has been alleged in the writ application or argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner 7 and therefore noticing the aforementioned facts there would be hardly any occasion to accept the aforementioned only submission confined to non supply of the documents. This Court would therefore find no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)