STATE OF BIHAR Vs. AKHIL CHANDRA GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is by the State of Bihar and its Water Resources Department, the respondents in CWJC No. 1191 of 1996(R) on the file of this Court. An earthen dam under Kyroni Madhyam Sinchai Yojana was constructed in Simdega Division. The work was done under the supervision of the respondent -the writ petitioner, and the contractor completed the work in the year 1983. About two years thereafter, some time in July, 1985, the dam breached. The writ petitioner, the respondent, was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In December, 1982 the inquiry officer submitted a report with a finding that the respondent was not guilty of the charges levelled against him. But he suggested that a warning be issued to the writ petitioner, the respondent in the appeal. According to the writ petitioner, this recommendation was accepted by the Commissioner, Minor Irrigation But the Minister, Water Resources differed and recommended that action be taken against the writ petitioner. A decision was taken to dismiss the writ petitioner from service and the decision was communicated to him. The writ petitioner thereupon filed CWJC No. 437 of 1999R in this Court. This Court by judgment dated 28.11.1994 quashed the order of dismissal and directed the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law. This Court stated thus : - -

(2.) PURSUANT to this, the authority issued a notice to the petitioner in view of the disagreement with the report f the enquiry officer. The writ petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard. After such hearing. an order dated 1.3.1996 marked Annexure 13 was passed imposing the punishment of dismissal on the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner again approached this Court with a writ petition, CWJC No. 1191 of 1996R. He contended that the order dismissing him from service was illegal and arbitrary and, without jurisdiction. The order has proceeded an assumption that the writ petitioner was found guilty in the inquiry whereas, as a matter of fact, he had been exonerated. The Minister concerned had acted on the basis of new charges and made notings in the file on the basis of which the order of dismissal was passed. In any event, the inquiry was vitiated in law, inasmuch as the inquiry was to be conducted by the Minor irrigation Department, and not by the Water Resources Department. The order of dismissal was, therefore, liable to be interfered with. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that the Water Resources Department was the appropriate Department to take action. There was no mala fides established against the Minister concerned. The direction of this Court in CWJC 437 of 1994R had been fully complied with and the writ petitioner given an opportunity of being heard. And the decision was taken after observing the principles of natural justice and after proceeding in accordance with law. There was therefore no justification in this Court interfering with the decision dismissing the writ petitioner.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that pursuant to the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 437 of 1994R, the writ petitioner was given a fresh notice in consonance with the finding in that judgment. The writ petitioner who has challenged the order of dismissal passed after giving him that notice, an opportunity to show cause and after considering that show cause and after fulfilling the requirements of natural justice, has not produced that notice issued to him by the disciplinary authority, so as to enable the Court to know what exactly were the terms of the notice and what were the reasons given therein in support of the notice to show cause why the writ petitioner should not be dismissed. From the reply to the show cause produced by the petitioner, Annexure -12, it is seen that the show cause was dated 3.5.1995 and that it contained all the relevant materials for which elaborate explanations were offered by the writ petitioner. In view of the failure of the writ petitioner to produce that notice dated 3.5.1995 issued to him to show cause, based on the noting of the Minister who differed from the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, it is not possible for the writ Court to come to the conclusion that the reasons for disagreeing with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer were not given by the disciplinary authority or that they were not communicated to the writ petitioner. In fact, in the absence of production of that notice, which we must assume, the writ petitioner has suppressed, it was not proper for the learned Single Judge to arrive at the finding that the reasons for differing from the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer had not been set down or made known to the writ petitioner. On that short ground, we are of the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge calls for interference. There is, of course, another aspect. Even of the learned Single Judge found that the reasons had not been communicated to the writ petitioner, the matter should have been remitted to the concerned authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge normally should not have directed reinstatement straightway as he has done. This position appears to be clear from the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Ravinder Nath, 1995 (Suppl) 3 SCC 592; State of Punjab V/s. Dr. Harbhajan Singh, (1996) 9 SCC 322 and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur V/s. Ajay Kumar Gulati, (1996) 9 SCC 485.