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:
- 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. - 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;
