- (1.) WITHHOLDING of five increments and inflicting certain punishments for the charges of demand and receipt of bribe money have been challenged before the learned single Judge. By the delinquent the only ground urged before the learned single Judge was that some of the documents demanded from the authorities have not been furnished to him. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the documents aforesaid were furnished to the delinquent and held that withholding of five increments and inflicting other punishments were not illegal. Having not been satisfied with the findings of the learned single Judge, the delinquent has filed this appeal.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. It is noticed that in respect of various charges, including charge No. 1 with regard to receipt of bribe money, the enquiry officer filed his report dated 19th August, 1987, stating that none of the charges has been proved. However, on 11th September, 1998 the disciplinary authority differing with the views, taken by the enquiry officer, issued a second show -cause notice to the appellant. Despite the reply submitted by the appellant, the disciplinary authority by order dated 9th April, 1999 imposed various punishments, including withholding of five increments. On perusal of the documents as also the memorandum of appeal and the writ petition it is clear that though the enquiry report has been submitted on 19th August, 1987, the disciplinary authority chose to send a second show -cause notice only on 11th September, 1998 i.e. after eleven years. Admittedly, there is no explanation on the part of the disciplinary authority with reference to such delay. Further, the disciplinary authority has merely given a finding that the defence version of the delinquent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. There are various reasons given by the enquiry officer to hold that the charges have not been proved, but there is no reference about those reasoning and no material has been referred in the notice dated 11th September 1998 as to why the disciplinary authority has to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. As a matter of fact, no reasons have been recorded in the second show -cause notice. Apart from that, it is noticed from the report of the enquiry officer that out of nine witnesses only two witnesses have been examined to prove the charges. Admittedly, those two witnesses have not been cross - examined. As a matter of fact, they were asked to come and appear before the enquiry officer to enable the delinquent to get them cross -examined but these officers were not available for cross - examination. Therefore, in our view, appropriate opportunity has not been given to the delinquent. Further, the disciplinary authority relied upon only the 161 statements of some witnesses to come to the finding, which may not be permissible under law in absence of anything, which have been given by those two witnesses. Therefore, in our view, the principle of natural justice has not been followed and consequently, the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority dated 9th April 1999, as affirmed by the learned single Judge, is set aside.
(3.) IT has been brought to our notice that in respect to illegal gratification separate charge -sheet has been filed by the Investigating Agency. However, from the order dated 7th December, 1990, passed by Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2049 of 1990, it is clear that since the investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police and not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, order taking cognizance has been quashed and an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is competent to investigate the matter, had been directed to investigate afresh and file final form.;