"Patna High Court Upholds Employee Rights: Flawed Disciplinary Action Set Aside"

 


Introduction

The case in question, Akhileshwar Mishra v. The State of Bihar & Ors., filed under Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10314 of 2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, presents a scenario where procedural impropriety and the denial of fair treatment under service laws come to the forefront. The judgment, delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri on September 1, 2022, highlights important aspects of disciplinary proceedings under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Akhileshwar Mishra, was employed as a Head Assistant in the Water Resources Department (WRD), Bihar. During his tenure, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings initiated on the grounds of alleged misconduct. The proceedings were triggered by framing an article of charges on April 9, 2007. However, the petitioner denied the charges brought against him through his explanation submitted to the charge-memo. Dissatisfied with the petitioner’s response, the disciplinary authority proceeded to conduct an inquiry which culminated in the issuance of a penalty order.

The Impugned Orders

Two contentious orders form the basis of the petitioner’s grievance:

  1. Order dated May 29, 2008 (issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, WRD, Bihar, Patna): This order imposed two punishments on the petitioner: a censure entry for the year 2006-2007 and a restriction of salary payment during the suspension period to subsistence allowance only.
  2. Order dated December 22, 2008 (issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, WRD, Bihar, Patna): This order rejected the petitioner’s appeal against the disciplinary authority’s decision.

The petitioner sought the quashing of these orders and requested full payment of salary for the suspension period, beyond the subsistence allowance that had been granted. Additionally, he sought calculation and payment of all retiral dues based on the corrected salary, along with interest on delayed payments.

Grounds of the Petition

The petitioner’s legal challenge was based on the following grounds:

  • Violation of Procedural Fairness: The petitioner contended that there was a failure to adhere to Rule 17 read with Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. He alleged that the disciplinary authority did not provide him with a copy of the inquiry officer’s report before imposing the penalty, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
  • Improper Treatment of Suspension Period: The petitioner argued that the suspension period should have been counted as duty for all purposes, including pension benefits.

Respondents’ Defense

The respondents contended that the penalty of censure was a minor punishment and, as such, it did not warrant adherence to the detailed procedural requirements under Rule 17. They maintained that the suspension period was considered for the purpose of pension, thereby justifying their decision.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Court’s analysis focused on the procedural irregularities in the imposition of the penalty. The Hon’ble Judge observed:

  • The charge-memo was issued under Rule 17, which pertains to major penalties. Therefore, all procedural safeguards under Rule 17 were required to be strictly followed, including providing a copy of the inquiry officer’s report to the petitioner before imposing a penalty.
  • The disciplinary authority's decision to impose a minor penalty of censure, despite initiating proceedings under Rule 17, amounted to procedural misconduct. The Court deprecated the authorities' attempt to “short circuit” the procedural requirements by imposing a minor penalty under a major penalty framework.
  • As a result, the impugned orders dated May 29, 2008, June 20, 2008, and December 22, 2008 were set aside.

Directions Issued

The Court directed the concerned respondent to:

  • Recalculate all monetary benefits due to the petitioner, including arrears of salary for the suspension period.
  • Release the calculated amount within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
  • Pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum if there is any delay in the payment.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, especially when the proceedings are initiated under frameworks designed for major penalties. It establishes a clear precedent that authorities cannot bypass procedural safeguards even when intending to impose minor penalties. The decision also emphasizes the need for providing a fair opportunity to the accused employee by supplying all relevant documents before the imposition of penalties.

Conclusion

The case of Akhileshwar Mishra v. The State of Bihar & Ors. is a vital reminder of the foundational principles of administrative law, particularly in the context of service jurisprudence. The ruling reinforces the need for procedural integrity and fairness in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that no authority can deviate from established legal norms under the guise of procedural convenience. Ultimately, the judgment protects the rights of employees against arbitrary or procedurally flawed disciplinary actions, promoting justice and fairness within the administrative framework.

Read the full judgement Below;

MTUjMTAzMTQjMjAxMSMxI04=-WVv8TKoDq1c=