Vitiated Enquiry ; Patna High Court Allows Writ Petition By Employee, Orders To Grant All Benefits Due.

Background Facts

An employee filed a writ application for reinstatement, which was allowed by an order dated 23.09.2010 without back wages. Employee's appeals were subsequently dismissed at higher courts. Then he filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which ruled on 08.07.2013 that employee should receive back wages for the period he was kept out of service, along with 9% interest, within three months.

In light of the Supreme Court's directive, the District Education Officer, Samastipur, issued various letters in 2013 directing Headmistress (Petitioner) of Golf Field Railway Colony Inter School, Samastipur to ensure payment of the arrears of salary to the employee. Later headmistress was served a letter to explain why a departmental proceeding should not be initiated against her for allegedly violating superior orders. She was later directed (by letter no. 198/13, dated 28.02.2014) to make the payment to employee.

Headmistress retired on 31.05.2014, having submitted her pension papers to the District Education Officer, Samastipur. Despite her retirement, the Director of Secondary Education initiated a departmental proceeding against her on 16.06.2014 for alleged violations of superior orders, appointing officials to oversee the enquiry. Headmistress submitted her defense on 20.08.2014, stating that she had complied with the Supreme Court's orders. She detailed the difficulties encountered in reconstructing employee's service book and calculating his arrears, which she managed to resolve, ensuring payment was made by 09.02.2014.

However, the order of punishment, vide Office Order No. 2679, dated 11.09.2015, was passed against the headmistress, whereby her 5 percent pension was forfeited. Aggrieved by the same, the headmistress filed the writ application.

It was argued by the headmistress that after her retirement on 31.05.2014, the relationship of master and servant ended. Therefore, it was illegal for the State (Respondents) to initiate departmental proceedings against her under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 2005. It was contended by her that no proceedings were pending at the time of her retirement, thus converting them into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was without jurisdiction. According to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, any proceeding should be initiated by the appointing authority with the sanction of the State Government. The headmistress claimed that no such sanction was obtained in her case.

It was further asserted by the headmistress that the enquiry report dated 16.05.2015 and the second show cause notice dated 25.06.2015 were not communicated to her at her home address. This lack of proper communication prevented her from submitting a reply to the second show cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It was argued by the headmistress that the disciplinary authority erroneously recorded that she had submitted a reply to the second show cause notice, which was not the case as the notice was never properly served to her.

On the other hand, it was contended by the State that the second show cause notice dated 25.06.2015, along with the enquiry report dated 16.05.2015, was duly communicated to the headmistress. They claimed that the headmistress was given an opportunity to submit her reply to the second show cause notice.

It was further asserted by the State that the enquiry report and the evidence presented were sufficient to establish the headmistress's misconduct. They argued that the headmistress failed to comply with the orders of the superior authorities and the Supreme Court, leading to the charges of violation of official duty being proven.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the second show cause notice dated 25.06.2015 and the enquiry report dated 16.05.2015 were not communicated to the headmistress at her home address as recorded in her service book. The notice was sent to the school address where the headmistress had already retired from on 31.05.2014. This led to the conclusion that the headmistress was not properly served and could not submit her reply to the second show cause notice. It was found by the court that the failure to serve the second show cause notice and the enquiry report on the headmistress violated the principles of natural justice. This procedural lapse invalidated the disciplinary proceedings against her.

It was further observed by the court that the enquiry was not conducted as per established procedures. The Enquiry Officer did not examine any witnesses, and no documentary evidence was produced by the Department to prove the charges against the headmistress. The enquiry report was based on the officer's own assertions without substantial evidence. It was found by the court that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for order of dismissal from service, post the headmistress's retirement, was without proper jurisdiction and unwarranted. The required sanction from the State Government for such conversion was also not obtained.

Based on these findings, the enquiry report dated 16.05.2015 and the order of punishment dated 11.09.2015 were set aside by the court. The headmistress was entitled to all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. It was concluded by the court that the entire enquiry and departmental proceedings were vitiated due to procedural lapses. With the aforesaid observations, the writ application was allowed.

Case No. : 21937 of 2014

Counsel for the Petitioner : Shivendra Kishore, Senior Advocate & Saroj Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents : Akash Raj, AC to AAG 5