Patna High Court Quashes Sub Registrar's Dismissal, Reiterates Article 311 Protections Against Arbitrary Removal
The Patna High Court bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri reversed the dismissal of Ram Pravesh Chauhan, a Sub Registrar from Nalanda's Hilsa Sub Registry Office. It cited an absence of adequate evidence in the disciplinary proceedings, while reiterating the protections under Article 311 of the Constitution, which prevents arbitrary dismissal by ensuring that only the appointing authority, or a higher one, can hold the power to dismiss. Following this, the Court ordered Chauhan's reinstatement with all associated benefits.
Background
According to the petitioner, Chauhan requested ₹10,000 in exchange for registering a parcel of land under his brother-in-law's name. Chauhan was allegedly caught accepting the bribe during a later sting operation, which resulted in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was placed on suspension, and a departmental investigation was launched, leading to his termination. Chauhan contested this decision, arguing that the investigation was defective in procedure and not grounded in factual data.
Arguments by the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, made two primary arguments. First, he asserted that the disciplinary inquiry was a “case of no evidence.” The alleged bribe money was discovered in an almirah in Chauhan's office, but there was no direct proof linking the money to him. During cross examination, the complainant admitted that Chauhan had not personally demanded the bribe and named two intermediaries as the facilitators.
Second, Chauhan raised an Article 311 challenge, arguing that his dismissal was procedurally improper. Under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, a civil servant cannot be dismissed by an authority inferior to the one who appointed them. Chauhan contended that his dismissal order, signed by the Joint Secretary of the Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department instead of the Principal Secretary, was in direct violation of this provision. According to the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 2005, only the Principal Secretary had the legal authority to issue the dismissal order, making the Joint Secretary's involvement unconstitutional.
Arguments by the Respondents
Mr. Manish Kumar, representing the State, defended the fairness of the inquiry, stating that it was based on the complainant's testimony and police findings. According to the State, the dismissal had been properly approved by the Cabinet and subsequently communicated by the Joint Secretary. The State emphasized that the Joint Secretary's role was limited to issuing the formal dismissal letter and did not involve any independent decision making.
The Court's Findings
The Court held, that while Article 311(1) prohibits the dismissal of a government employee by an authority lower than the one that appointed them, in Chauhan's case, the dismissal had been substantively decided by the Principal Secretary, endorsed by the Cabinet, and sanctioned by the Governor. The Joint Secretary's role was merely to communicate the decision, and not to make it. The Court clarified that Article 311 does not prevent a lower ranking official from formally communicating a dismissal order, as long as the authority making the decision is the one legally empowered to do so. Therefore, the procedural requirement of Article 311 was fulfilled.
Further, on the lack of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings, the court found that the complainant's testimony failed to establish that Chauhan directly demanded a bribe. The complainant admitted during cross examination that intermediaries had handled the bribery transaction and that Chauhan was not directly involved. Moreover, the Court highlighted that the discovery of the bribe money in an almirah in Chauhan's office was insufficient to establish guilt. There was no evidence proving Chauhan had exclusive control over the almirah, raising doubts about whether the money could be directly attributed to him. The inquiry officer's focus on the presence of money in the office, without linking it definitively to Chauhan, was not enough to uphold the charge.
Lastly, the Court emphasized that the demand for a bribe is a critical element for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as established in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55. Merely recovering money, absent evidence of a direct demand, does not constitute a valid charge. In this case, the absence of such evidence rendered the disciplinary authority's decision unsustainable. Thus, the Court ordered Chauhan's reinstatement with all consequential benefits
Ram Pravesh Chauhan Versus State of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16992 of 2021
Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri
Advocate for the respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar
Date of Decision: 08 10 2024