Sheochandra Jha v. State Of Bihar And Others, Jharkhand High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.W.J.C No. 2134 of 1999 (R)

Judges

Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

Acts

S. 466 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and 13(1) and 134(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Annexures 20, 21 and 22

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was a Junior Engineer (J.E.) posted in Jaipath Pramandal, Khunti. On 26-6-1988 a theft (or shortage) occurred in the Kakaraiya godown at Khunti while the petitioner was away after being called by the Chief Engineer at Ranchi. The petitioner lodged an FIR on returning; the police initially submitted a final form in respect of that FIR. The petitioner moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.) asking that the final form not be accepted; the magistrate did not grant that prayer. The petitioner filed a revision which was allowed by the Sessions Judge. The Judicial Magistrate thereafter found the case to be true (Annexure-2).

The department instituted disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on eight charges (detailed in the record). Following a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was discharged from service by the order contained in Annexure-5. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that a police investigation found misappropriation of government property (with a preliminary finding of about 45 metric tonnes short) and that the petitioner had allowed the chokidar leave on the relevant date; the petitioner was arrested and, in the departmental enquiry, all eight charges were found proved (Annexure-B). A second show-cause notice on the proposed punishment had been issued (Annexure-C) and the petitioner’s replies were considered and rejected before Annexure-5 was passed.

In the writ petition the petitioner contested the departmental enquiry and Annexure-5 on multiple grounds (vagueness of charges; denial of documents and copies of evidence; lack of notice of enquiry dates; ex parte enquiry and lack of opportunity for cross-examination; and that his show-cause (Annexure-4) was not answered).

The record contains multiple annexures filed by both sides, including police reports, court orders (including bail and later closure/decisions), departmental enquiry notices and report, and a judgment of the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.13 of 1989 in which the petitioner was acquitted (Annexure-24).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Annexure-5 (the dismissal order) passed after a departmental enquiry can be quashed on grounds that the departmental proceeding was conducted (and concluded in dismissal) while a criminal proceeding arising from the same facts was pending and later resulted in the petitioner’s acquittal.
Whether the departmental enquiry suffered procedural infirmities warranting quashing of the dismissal order — specifically: vagueness of charges, failure to supply relevant documents and copies of witness statements, lack of notice of enquiry dates, ex parte enquiry and denial of opportunity to cross-examine, and non-answering of the petitioner’s earlier show-cause.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

All eight charges framed in the departmental proceedings were vague and caused serious prejudice (para 10).
Relevant documents demanded by the petitioner were not provided to him (para 11).
The petitioner was not intimated of the date of the departmental enquiry and therefore did not attend (para 12).
The departmental enquiry proceeded ex parte and the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses (para 13).
Copies of witness evidence were not given to the petitioner (para 14).
The petitioner had raised these points in his show-cause (Annexure-4) but, according to him, they were not answered before dismissal (para 25).
The petitioner submitted multiple annexures including police reports, court orders, and ultimately a Special Judge’s judgment (Annexure-24) showing acquittal in the criminal case.
By reference (in Annexure-E) the petitioner relied on prior high court / Supreme Court authority (cited as (1998) BLJR 755, (1998) 4 SCC 39 : AIR 1998 SC 1801) seeking that the departmental enquiry be kept pending.

Respondents’ Arguments

The charges framed are not vague (counter affidavit para 8).
Relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner (para 13 of counter affidavit).
The enquiry officer’s report indicates the proceedee (petitioner) did not cooperate with the conducting officer and therefore did not attend (para 14 of counter affidavit).
Copies of witness evidence were given to the petitioner (paras 15 and 8 of counter affidavit).
The respondents contended that the police found the case to be one of misappropriation (criminal offences under sections such as 466, 468, 477 of the IPC) involving about 45 MT of iron rods missing, and that the petitioner had allowed the chokidar leave; the petitioner was arrested and the departmental enquiry found all eight charges proved (Annexure-B); a second show-cause on punishment was issued and the petitioner’s reply was considered and rejected before Annexure-5 was passed (para 18).
The respondents produced documents showing that the petitioner had been informed of enquiry dates by letters (Annexures D, F, G, H) and that the enquiry officer had changed because of transfer (supplementary counter affidavit paragraph 5(b)).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
(1998) 4 SCC 39; AIR 1998 SC 1801 (also cited as (1998) BLJR 755)	Cited by the petitioner (Annexure-E) as authority supporting the submission that the departmental enquiry should be kept pending in view of the pendency of criminal proceedings.	The decision was relied upon by the petitioner in asking the enquiry to be stayed; the opinion records that the petitioner referenced this Supreme Court authority when requesting suspension of the departmental enquiry, but the court's operative reasoning primarily tracks a Division Bench decision of this court rather than setting out detailed application of this Supreme Court authority.
2002 (3) JLJR 299 (Division Bench decision of the High Court)	Held (as described in the record) that where a departmental proceeding was not stayed in the face of pendency of criminal proceedings and dismissal occurred before the criminal case was finally decided (and the criminal case later decided in favour of the employee), relief was warranted.	The court found the facts of the present case "exactly same" as that Division Bench decision and applied it to allow the writ. The Division Bench decision was the primary precedent on which the court based relief.
Judgment of the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 13 of 1989 (Annexure-24)	This is a decision on the criminal charge in which the petitioner was the accused and was acquitted.	The court relied on the fact of the petitioner’s acquittal (as established by Annexure-24) as a material circumstance relevant to the consequence of departmental dismissal being quashed in view of the cited Division Bench precedent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the material on record including the departmental enquiry notices (Annexures D, F, G, H) and the departmental enquiry report (Annexure-I). The enquiry officer had sent multiple notices directing the petitioner to appear; the petitioner had refused to appear before the newly appointed enquiry officer (Sri Man Bahadur Mahto) on the ground that he had earlier submitted his statement to the previous enquiry officer (Sri Ram Naresh Shukla) and had requested suspension of the enquiry (Annexure-E). The record indicates that the enquiry officer was subsequently changed due to transfer (supplementary counter affidavit, paragraph 5(b)).

The court treated the change of the enquiry officer (due to transfer) as not invalidating the enquiry as such: the fact of change did not in itself render the subsequent enquiry improper. The enquiry officer’s report also recorded that the petitioner did not cooperate in the departmental enquiry by failing to attend despite notices.

Critically, the court compared the facts of this case with a Division Bench decision reported at 2002 (3) JLJR 299. In that earlier decision a bodyguard was criminally prosecuted and also subjected to departmental proceedings; the departmental proceedings were not stayed pending the criminal prosecution, the employee was dismissed before the conclusion of the criminal case, and the criminal case was ultimately decided in favour of the employee. The court observed that the facts and circumstances of the present case were "exactly same" — namely, a criminal prosecution arising from the same facts was pending, the petitioner had asked for the departmental proceedings to be stayed, the departmental proceedings were not stayed and the petitioner was dismissed, and in the criminal proceedings the petitioner was ultimately acquitted (Annexure-24).

On that basis the court concluded that the Division Bench authority applied and warranted relief to the petitioner. The opinion does not set out any extended new legal principle of its own; rather, it relies on the cited Division Bench decision and the fact of the petitioner’s acquittal to reach the outcome.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The court allowed the writ in view of the cited Division Bench authority and the factual circumstance that the criminal prosecution (arising from the same events) was pending when the departmental proceedings led to dismissal and subsequently the petitioner was acquitted (Annexure-24). The court ordered relief with "obvious consequences" (the opinion itself states "the writ is allowed with obvious consequences" and records "Petition allowed").

Implications: The direct effect recorded in the opinion is that the writ has been allowed; the opinion does not elaborate other broader legal consequences or purport to lay down a new precedent. The court applied existing Division Bench authority to quash the departmental outcome in the circumstances described. No new legal precedent is stated to have been set by this opinion.

Show full summary ...

Sheochandra Jha v. State Of Bihar And Others

1. The petitioner has filed this writ for quashing the order contained in Annexure-5, whereby and whereunder he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner, as per his case, was a J.E and was posted in Jaipath Pramandal, Khunti when on 26-6-1988 was called by the Chief Engineer at Ranchi. He went there and there he had to stay. One Choukidar (Night Guard) employed to guard the Godown at Khunti beside Sri S.N Singh A.E was the over all in charge of the said godown. According to the petitioner in his short absence a theft occurred in the godown on 26-6-1988 after coming back he lodged an F.I.R but in that case the police submitted final form the petitioner then moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate not to accept final form, the magistrate did not allow his prayer, then he filed a Revision against the order of C.J.M which was allowed by the Sessions Judge. The J.M thereafter found that the case was true (Annexure-2). The petitioner was departmentally proceeded on following charge:—

Charge No. - 1

APKEY DWARA DI SUCHNA KE ANUSAR DINANK 26-8-1988 KE RATRIMEN AGYAAT CHOR DWAR KAKARIA GODAM KE PRANGAN JO SICHAI VIBHAG JALPATH PRAMANDAL KHUNTI KE ADHIN HAI CHHAR KI CHORI HUI. APKEY KATHANA ANUSAR IS CHORI KI SUCHAN APAKO DINANK 11-7-1988 KO MILL ATH YAH SPAST HOTA HAIKI CHORI TITHI 26-6-1988 HAI YA ANYA KOIE HAI. ISKI NISCHIT JANKARI APAKO NAHIN MIL PAL ATH APAKA KATHAN KOI THOSSACHAYA KE ABHAV MEN SENDESHATMAK. HAI.

Charge No. - 2

APAKE KATHANAUSAR DINANK 18-6-1988 SE 20-6-1988 TAK PRAMANDALIYA KARYALAY KE AKENCHAN KE DOIRAN APAKO PRAMANDALIYA KARYALAY MEN ROK RAKHA THA. TATHA USEKE BAD DINAK 11-7-1988 TAK KUCH KAGJAT LENE KE CHALTE FIR APAKO KHUNTI MEN RAHNA PARA. Is ASHAY PAR APENE KOI DASTAWAGE, SACHAYA PRASTUT NAHAIN KEY, NA TO KISI BHI UCHA ADHAKARI KA ADESH JISKE ADHAR PAR APAKO IEANI LABI AWADHI KE LIYE MUKHALAYA KE BHAR RAHNA PARA USAKA KOI PRASHANG YA PATRA SHANKAYA APAKE KE SUCHANA MEN ULIKHIT NAHI HAI. SATH HIN APAKE AWAR PRAMANDAL PADHAKARI KE ANUSAR APAKA YAH KAHNA KI APA AWASKAY KARYA HETU KHUNTI MEN DINANK 18-6-1988 SE 11-7-88 TAK UPASTHIT REHE AWAM USAKI KARAN APA KE DWARA APANA MUKHALAYA KA AWASHKAY KARAYA KARANA ASHAMBHAV THA, YE BILKUL NIRADHAR TATHA YSATYA HAI. IS SAMBADH MEN AAP APENE SAMARTHAN MEN KISI PRAKAR KI NIRVHAR YOGAY ABHILEKH PRASTUT NAHI KIYA HAI. ATAH AAP IN SARE AWADHI APENE MUKHALAYA KA KARYA KAR SEKTE THE PARATNU APAKE KE DWARA NAHI KIYA GAYA.

NIYAM KE Charge No. 3

APKE DWARA DARJ KI GAI PRATHMIKI KE ANUSAR APANESPASTSTA RUP NSE ULEKHA KIYA HI KI PURI CHHANBIN KARNE PAR APAKO PATA CHALA KI CHORI KI GAI CHHAD KI MATRA 30 MITICTONN HAI JABAK1 ISI PRATHAMIKI KE ANTA ME APANE YHA BHI LIKHA HAI KI STOCK KA BIBARAN JANCHKAR BAF ME DIYA JAYAGA ISE SPASTA HOTA HAI KI PRAMIKI ME APAKE DWARA JO SUCHANA DI GAI THI USPAR AAP APANE HI SUNISCHIT NAHI THE ABAM APAKI PRATHMIKI SANDEO KE BAHAR NAHI THI. ISE SPASTA HOTA HAI KI AAP PRAARAMBH ME HI GALAT PRATHMIKE DARJ KARAYE JO AAPAKONAHI KARANA THA. ATHA GGALAT TATHYA DEKAR PRATHMIKIDARJA KARNE KELIY AAP UTARDAIPAYE GAYE HAI.

CHARGE No. 4

ABAR PRAMANDAL PADADHIKARI KE DWARA BHINN BHINN SAMAY PAR AAPKO NIDESH DIYA JATA THA KI AAP KABHI BHI UCHIT SAMAY PAR APANI LEKHANY PRASTUT NAHI KARATE THE IN PATROKE UTTAR ME AAPNE KABHI BHI KOI SPATIKARAN NAHI DIYA, NA TO APANI LEKHA KO ADHYATAN KARNE KI DISA MEN AAPAKO KAUNSI KATHINAI THI, JSKI BHI AAPANE KABHI SPASTA NAHI KIYA. ISE SPASTA HOTA HAI KI AAP HAMESHA APANI LEKHAYON KO BAKAYA RAKHA KARATE THE, ABAM ISI KARANBAS AAPAKE DWARA DASRJE KI GAI PRATHMIKI MEN GALAT ABAM BHRAMAK TATHYA ANKIT KI GAI THI. ATA YAH AAROP AP KO BIRUDH STHAPIT HOTA HAI KI AAP APANE KARTABYA KI KABHI BHI SUCHARU RUOP SE NISPADIT KIYA

CHARGE No. 5.

AAPKE DWARA JO BHI LEKHAYEN SAMARPIT KI GAI HAI EBAM AAPKE PAS JO BHI ABHILEKH UPLABDHA HAI, USASE SPASTA HOT HIA KI AAP ANUSAR SAMAGRIYION KO NIRGAT NAHI KIYE EBAM MANMANI DANG SE APANE STAR SE TATHA APANI ICHHA SE SAMAGRIYON KO NIRGAT KARATE THE. JABAK1 LOK NIRMAN LEKHA SANHITA KI KANDIKA 119 KE ANUSAR AAPKO EK BISHISTHA PRAKRIYA ME SAMAGRIYION KO NIRGAT KARANA THA ISASE SPASTA HOTA HAI KI SAMAGRIYON KE NIKASI KE MAMALE MEN AAPNE NA KISI AADESH NA KOI NIYAM KA ANUPAKLAN KIYA EBAM AAPKA YAH KAHANA HAI KI SAHAYAK ABHIYANTA KE MAUKHIK AADESH PAR AAP SAMAGRIYON KO NIRGAT KIYA KARTE THE YHA BISKUL NIRADHAR TATHA MANGATHIT HAI.

CHARGE No. 6.

KAKARIYA GODAM MEM RAKHI RAYI SAMAGRIYON KO SURAKCHA HETU DAINIK MAZDURI KE AADHAR PAR DO CHAUKIDARO KA PAD SWAKRIT THA BARTHAN SAHAYAK ABHIYANTA SHRI H.P SINGH KE YOGDAN KE PURVA SE HI SHRI PRABHAS KUMAR EK PAD MEN PADASTHAPIT THE. DUSRA PAD RIKTA THA EBAM USAMEN KISI BHI CHAUKIDAR KI NIYUKTA KARANE KE DISHA ME AAPANE LIKHIT RUP SE KOI SUJHAO NAHI DIYA. NA TO KOI AAPATTI UTHAYA. JO BHI EK CHOUKIDAR KARYARAT THA, USE BHI AAPNE ANADHIKRIT RUP SE CHORI KE PURVA AVAKASH DE DIYA THA. JAMAKI KISI BHI DAINIK MAZDOOR KO IS PRAKAR KI AVAKASH NAHI DI JATI HAI. EK CHAUKIDAR KO ABAKASH DE DENI KE BAD BHI AAPNE USAKE RIKTA STHAN PAR KARYA KARANE KE LIYE KOI BAIKALPIT BY ABSTHA NAHI KIYA. SATH HI UPRVA SE JO BYABSTHA THI USE BHI AAP APANE STAR SE SAMAPAT KAR DI, JISKE CHALTE UPROKTA CHHAD KI CHORI KARANA BAHUT HI ASAN THI EBAM USAKE LIYE AAP SVYAN JIMMEBAR HAI.

CHARGE No. 7.

APKE PURVA JANCH KE BAD KUL 30 METRIC TONN CHHAD KI KAMI PAYI GAYI THI. BAD MEN JAN DO SAHAYAJK ABHIYANTA EBOM AAPKO LEKAR TIN KANIYA ABHIYANTA KE DWARA SAMAGRIYO KO BHAUTIK SATYAPAN KI GAYI TO BASTAV CHHAND KI KAMI KAPRIMAP LAGBHAG 45 METRIC TONN PAYA GAYA. AAP PRATHAMAKI ME SPAST RUP SE ANKIT KIYA THA KI GODAM KE PURV TATHA PASHIM DISHA SE CHAR KA KOIE BANDAL GAYAB PAYA KAYA YAI AAPKE JANKARI MEN PURI SAMAGRIYON KI TANKI STHATI KA DOI GYAN NAHIN THA. YADI AAAP AAAWASYAK RUP SE AAPANA MUKHYALAY NAHIN CHORETE TO APAKO PURNTH MALUM RAHTA KI GODAM MEKAHAN KITNI SAMAGRIYAN RAKHI HUE HAI. AAPKE DWARA DARJ KI GAYE GALAT EBM BHRAMAK PRATHMAKI SE YAHSPAST HOTA HAI KI AAP MUKHYALAY MEN UPASTHIT NAHIN REHTE THE EBM KAHI DUR SE ISKI JANKARI LIYA KARTE THE IS BAT KI SAMPUSTI APAKI EK HI THATYA SE HI JATI HAI KI GODAM KE KIS TARAF KITNI SMAGRIYON KO RAKHI GAYETH1. USKA KOIE GODAM REGISTER THA ANYA LEKHA AAPNE UPSTHAPIT NAHAIN KIYA. AAP EK KANIYA BHIYANTA KE HASIYAT SE AAPKI APANI DANIK KARYAKLAP KI TITHIWAR NOTE BOOK ME ANKIT KARNA THA JO KI AAPNE KBHI NAHAIN KIYA. AAP KBHI BHI NOTE BOOK KI MANG AHAIN KI. NA APANE NIJIT NOTE BOOK REKHTE HUE SAHAYAK ABHIYANTA YANTIK SE USK1 JANCH KARAYA.

CHARGE No. 8

AAPKE DWARA DARJ PRATHMIKI KE ADHAR PAR THANA KAND SANKHYA-4/89 MEN POLICE KE ANUSANDHAN SE YAH PATA CHALTA HAI KI UKT KAND SUNIYOJIT DHANG SE AAP DWARA DARJ KARAYA GAYA HAI JISKE LIYE AAP JIMMEWAR PAYE GAYE HAI AUR AAPKE VIRUDH DHARA-466/467/468/471/477(3)/409.BHA. DAND. VIDHAN. EBM 13(1)CI(13(2) BHRASTACHAR ADHINIYAM KE ADHAR KE THAT AAROP PATRA SAMARPIT KIYA GAYA HAI. SACHYA KE RUP ME POLICE ANUSANDHAN KI PRATILIPI SANLAGNA HAI.

3. After the departmental enquiry he was discharged from service by Annexure-5. Respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit. According to them the police found the case not of the theft but of misappropriation of Governmerit property lodged a case under Ss. 466. 477, 468 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The preliminary enquiry revealed that 45 M.T of Iron rods was short in the store and the Chokidar had been allowed leave on that date by the petitioner. This preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner was consequently arrested. In departmental enquiry all the eight charges were proved against him (Annexure-B) and prior to issue of the dismissal order second show cause had also been issued on proposed question of punishment (Annexure-C). The petitioner has given his reply which was examined and found not solid and so rejecting the same. Impugned order Annexure-5 was passed.

4. The petitioner in his writ has assailed the enquiry and impugned order on following grounds:

(i) All the charges are vague resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner (para 10)

(ii) No relevant document provided to him (vide para-11) even though he demanded for that

(iii) He was not intimated with the date of enquiry so he did not attend the enquiry (para 12)

(iv) Enquiry was ex parte and he was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses (para-13)

(v) Copies of evidence of witnesses were not given to him (para 14)

(vi) The petitioner took all these points in his show cause (Annexure-4), but without answering them he was dismissed.

5. Respondents refute the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner in their counter affidavit in following way.

(i) Charges framed are not vague (para-8) (ii) Documents were supplied (para-13)

(iii) with regard to allegation (iii-iv) the report of the enquiry officer reveals that the proceedee did not cooperate the conducting officer (para-14)

(iv) Copies of evidence given (para 15. 8)

6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit annexing Annexures 6 to 23. Annexure-6 is the report submitted by the petitioner to the officer in charge of Lapung police station regarding the theft. This was lodged on 12-7-1988 though theft had taken place on 26-6-1988. Annbexure-7 is a report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who found that this was a case of defalcation and corruption and he reported this matter to the Superintendent of Po lice. Annexure-8 is the protest petition lodged by the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the final form of the police, annexure-9 is the order sheet of the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Annexure-10 is the order of the High Court passed in Cri. Misc. No. 1279 of 1989 (R), wherein the petitioner was granted bail in the vigilance case aforesaid. Annexure-11 is the acceptance of the bail bond. Annexure 12 is the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby Lapung P.S Case No. 15 of 1988 was closed. Annexure 13 is the order passed by this Court against the suspension of the petitioner with a direction to complete the investigation. Annexure-14 is again an order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C No. 3237 of 1992 (R) with a direction to expedite the investigation Annexure-15 is the protest petition submitted in Lapung P.S Case No. 15 of 1988 by the petitioner. Annexures 16 and 17 are the evidence of witnesses of that case. Annexure-19 is the charge framed against the petitioner under S. 466 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and 13(1) and 134(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Annexures 20, 21 and 22 are the evidence of witnesses in that case. Annexure-23 is a report sent by the Chief Engineer to the Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Patna-15, wherein he informed that from the complaint case No. 106 of 1995 it appears that the case was not of misappropriation of Government materials.

7. Then a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents enclosing Annexures D to I. Annexure-D is a letter issued by Sri Man Bahadur Mahto, the conducting enquiry officer to the petitioner indicating that since he has been appointed as an enquiring officer and therefore, he should appear before him on 18-7-1994 at 11 A.M A copy of this has also been forwarded to the previous enquiry officer who is at present posted as Executive Engineer, in another Division of the Department at Patna Annexure-E is an other letter sent by the petitioner to Sri Man Bahadur Mahto, in which he said that he has already given his statement in writing on 25-2-1994 to Sri Ram Naresh Shukla, in which he said that he is innocent and in view of the pendency of the case and in view of the High Court's (Supreme Court's) decision (1998) BLJR 755 : ((1998) 4 SCC 39 : AIR 1998 SC 1801), 1989 PLJR (Sic) (SC), the enquiry may be kept pending. Annexure-F is another letter sent by Sri Man Bahadur Mahto to the petitioner informing him that the next date fixed for enquiry was 4-5-1995 so, he should appear at 11.30 A.M Annexure G is yet another letter sent by the enquiry officer to the petitioner stating that despite notices he had not appeared before the enquiry officer, therefore, he was directed to come on 20-5-1995 with his witnesses. Annexure-H is a similar letter which directed the petitioner that next date is fixed on 4-4-1996 and if the petitioner does not come with his witnesses then ex parte enquiry will be made and the final enquiry report will be placed before the Government. Annexure-I is report of departmental proceeding submitted by the enquiry officer.

8. Thereafter the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing Annexure-24, which is a Judgment of the learned Special Judge in special Case No. 13 of 1989, in which the petitioner was the accused and he was acquitted of the charges.

9. From Annexure-D, it is amply clear that then petitioner had been informed of the enquiry to be conducted by the enquiry officer, Sri Man Bahadur Mahto and he was also made aware of the next date through Annexures F.G and H., but Annexure-E says that knowing fully well that Sri Man Bahadur Mahto had been appointed as another enquiry officer the petitioner refused to appear before him on the ground that he had already submitted his show cause to Sri Ram Naresh Shukla, the previous enquiry officer of this case and he has only requested to suspend the enquiry. The enquiry report Annexure-I shows that earlier Sri Ram Naresh Shukla has been appointed as an enquiry officer but thereafter in place of Sri Ram Naresh Shukla Sri Man Bahadur Mahto was appointed as the enquiry officer. Paragraph 5(b) of the supplementary counter affidavit indicates that the enquiry officer was changed due to transfer. So if the enquiry officer was changed due to transfer then there is nothing in the enquiry being conducted by the subsequent enquiry officer.

10. In view of a Division Bench decision of this court, reported in 2002 (3) JLJR 299, in which a body guard was prosecuted for an offence under S. 363. 366-A and 376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code criminally and he was also de-partmentally proceeded, but the departmental proceeding had not been stayed in face of the pendency of the criminal proceeding and the said body guard was dismissed prior to the final decision in the criminal case and the criminal case was ultimately decided in favour of the body guard.

11. The fact and circumstances of this case are exactly same because in this case also a criminal case was pending and the petitioner prayed for staying the departmental proceeding, but the departmental proceeding was not stayed and dismissal was made earlier to the disposed of the criminal proceeding and in the criminal proceeding the petitioner was acquitted.

12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, the writ is allowed with obvious consequences.

13. Petition allowed.

Sheochandra Jha v. State Of Bihar And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Respondents’ Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Sheochandra Jha v. State Of Bihar And Others

Comments