Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court has set aside the dismissal of a government employee (the petitioner) from the Press and Forms Office, Gaya, after finding that his termination under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code was factually and legally flawed.
The petitioner, a worker and union member, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated through a charge memo dated 24 August 2013. He was accused of (1) unauthorized absence from duty from 7 April 2009 till the charge memo date and (2) indirectly contributing to financial misappropriation by being absent. A third charge alleging misappropriation was dropped during the inquiry.
The petitioner participated in the inquiry and denied the charges, stating that he was suspended from 31 March 2010 to 23 January 2011—a period that could not legally be counted as “unauthorized absence.” He also claimed that due to threats linked to his union activities, he had sought a transfer, which was denied by the authorities.
Despite these clarifications, the disciplinary authority dismissed him on 23 June 2014 by invoking Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code, which permits dismissal if an employee is absent for more than five years without authorization. However, the Court found that the charges only alleged absence till 24 August 2013, a period of less than five years. Moreover, participation in disciplinary proceedings thereafter invalidated the claim of continued absence.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that the punishment was based on a period of absence not mentioned in the charge memo or examined during inquiry. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, the Court noted that punishment cannot be imposed based on allegations for which no charges were framed.
Consequently, both the dismissal order and the appellate authority’s rejection of the petitioner’s appeal were quashed. The Court remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, directing expeditious disposal as per law. Pending this decision, the petitioner would be deemed under suspension and entitled to related benefits.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings. Public servants cannot be punished under legal provisions unless the conditions set out in those provisions are clearly met.
The Court’s decision serves as a safeguard against misuse of service rules, ensuring that punitive measures are based on well-defined and established charges. For employees, especially those involved in union activities, it underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting their rights from arbitrary action. For the administration, it’s a reminder to carefully match charges with findings and applicable service rules before deciding on dismissal.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Can Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code be invoked without meeting the five-year threshold of unauthorized absence?
➤ No. The Court held that the period of alleged absence was less than five years and hence Rule 76 was inapplicable. - Can a dismissal order be sustained based on findings not covered in the charge memo?
➤ No. Relying on M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, the Court ruled that punishment must relate to specific charges. - Was the disciplinary process followed properly in this case?
➤ No. The disciplinary authority expanded the findings beyond the original charges, making the process invalid. - What is the remedy when a dismissal order is found illegal?
➤ The dismissal is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. The petitioner is deemed under suspension in the meantime.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88
Case Title
Dinesh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
CWJC No. 5995 of 2015
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 196
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Ajey Kumar – For the Petitioner
Mr. Himanshu Kr. Akela (AC to PAAG2) – For the State
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTk5NSMyMDE1IzEjTg==-Nrv9hWv5Km0=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
