Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the enquiry report, notice dated 20.11.2003, second show -cause notice dated 25.11.2003 and orders dated 01.12.2003 and 26.02.2005. The brief facts of the case are that, by letter dated 28.10.1997, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Civil Court, Gumla. On 25.09.2003, the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla directed the Judge Incharge (Administration), Civil Court, Gumla to conduct an enquiry into the incident in which a phone call was made to the District and Sessions Judge, at about 8.13 A.M. on 25.09.2003 by someone, impersonating himself as the Zonal Judge and directing him to transfer one Bipin Kumar from the office of Registrar. Besides other necessary details about the incident, the telephone number from which the call was made to the District and Sessions Judge was also mentioned in confidential letter No. 33 dated 25.09.2003. On 26.09.2003, a report was submitted to the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla stating that the Civil Court employee namely, Narendra Prasad Sinha had made the said telephone call to the residence of the District and Sessions Judge. The Judge Incharge had summoned the said employee (the petitioner here) and when asked him about the said misconduct, the petitioner admitted his guilt and tendered apology. The petitioner had infact, tendered a written apology dated 25.09.2003 admitting his guilt. A show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.11.2003 by the District and Sessions Judge, Gumla requiring him to submit his reply as to why a disciplinary action for misconduct, indiscipline and insubordination, be not initiated against him. The details of charges were also furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24.11.2003 stating that in an unstable mental condition he had made such call to the residence of the District Judge. On 24.11.2003 the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered and it was ordered to dispense with further enquiry as contemplated under Rule 166 of Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules. The petitioner was held guilty of the misconduct and therefore, it was ordered to issue second show -cause notice to the petitioner. On 25.11.2003, a second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his reply to the proposed punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.11.2003 and an order of punishment dated 01.12.2003 was passed removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 26.02.2005. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District and Sessions judge, Gumla, stating as under, 10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph - 9 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the statements made therein are not correct to the extent that the written admission of guilt tendering apology was submitted by the petitioner to the District & Sessions judge, Gumla without any pressure or duress whatsoever and it is the fact that the petitioner volunteered to admit his guilt after the matter was disclosed on enquiry from S.T.D. Booth owner, who recognized the petitioner as caller and also the computerized bill of call was also submitted and S.T.D. Booth owner himself submitted everything in writing before the enquiry officer on 25.09.2003 only then the petitioner finding no way out, then admitted his guilt 16. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph - 15 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the statements made therein are disputed hence denied. It is further stated and submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum -judge Incharge, Gumla independently and in accordance with the fair procedure and rule and it is further stated that as per rule after holding the petitioner guilty, second show -cause notice was served upon the petitioner and representation therein was considered before passing the order of removal of the petitioner from service by the District & Sessions Judge, Gumla. 19. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph - 20 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the statements made therein are disputed hence denied in view of the seriousness and gravity of charges, which are well proved against the petitioner having bearing upon moral conduct of the petitioner for resorting to the extent of offence of impersonation for serving his own selfish motive. A counter -affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which a plea of loss of confidence has been taken. In paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, the following plea has been taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3: 9. That in reply to the statements made in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition under reply it is stated that it is completely false to allege that there was any kind of pressure or duress upon the Petitioner during admission of guilt. This allegation is after -thought and hence denied from its inception as there is not an iota of truth in such wild allegation. It is submitted that the Petitioner himself voluntarily admitted in writing twice, about impersonating the voice of Hon'ble Judge which is very serious in nature. Later part of this para relates with seeking pardon for his conduct, which itself speaks much in support of the voluntary admission of guilt; negating any element of undue pressure or duress. The Petitioner can not take both pleas simultaneously. 10. That in reply to the statements made in Paragraph 10 to 19 of the writ petition under reply it is stated that the matter in these paras are matters of record. In most of the Paras the details of annexures have been reproduced only to encumber the petition. All the facts and pleas taken by the Petitioner in these para (as well as in Annexures) have elaborately been considered during the departmental proceeding conducted against the Petitioner. It is submitted in this context that, the Petitioner for the first time in memo of appeal has taken the stand of undue pressure and duress which is neither tenable on facts nor maintainable under law. Petitioner had several opportunities viz. replying the notice to show cause before Judge in charge on 25.09.03, his written statement before D.J. On 24.11.03 and even during the second show cause on 29.11.03 but no where he raised this allegation nor led evidence also in support of his wild contention. As such, any plea at this stage is not permissible. 11. That in reply to the statements made in Paragraph 20 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated that the statement made in this para are completely denied. The admitted guilt of the Petitioner is very grave and violative of conduct of Govt. officials. A Govt. employee is expected to be in strict observance of the conduct Rules which are the fundamental requirement and basic virtue for being a Govt. official. Any departure from the same is viewed very seriously as it breaks the thread of trust and discipline of an institution. Giving direction to the head of the judgeship and that too impersonating himself as Hon'ble Judge of the High Court is a very serious matter and it was done purposely and Petitioner can not be heard to say that it was due to his disturbed state of mind. Having been proved the charge aforesaid, the punishment awarded is perfectly proportionate. No principle of natural justice has been violated in conduct of the departmental inquiry, as alleged or at all. 12. That in reply to the statements made in Paragraph 21 of the writ petition under reply it is stated that with regard to the statement made in this para, it is submitted that the same are not correct and hence denied. It is repeatedly denied that there was any kind of pressure or duress on the Petitioner while admitting his guilt. The inquiry was conducted by C.J.M. cum Judge in charge and thereafter, after giving opportunity to the Petitioner to file his second show cause, the final order was passed by the D.J. Gumla. It is again submitted that during the second show cause, no allegation of duress or pressure was alleged.
(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the statements made in the counter -affidavits of the respondents.;