In The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.vs. Keshav Kumar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 9-page long judgment dated August 12, 2025. This judgement was authored by Justice Justice Parha Sarthy upheld the 7-page long order dated September 26, 2024 by Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge who had set aside the order of punishment as also the orders passed in appeal/revision/review in Keshav Kumar vs. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. (2024).
Justice Sarthy partly allowed the appeal with the liberty to the appellant/Union of India to initiate the disciplinary enquiry afresh from the stage of appointing the Presenting Officer. The judgement reads: "16. On commencement of the departmental proceeding, the respondent shall be placed under suspension and during the period of suspension he shall be paid subsistence allowance. So far as payment of arrears of pay/salary/allowances for the period of suspension/dismissal are concerned, the same shall be decided by the respondent- authorities. The departmental proceeding shall be concluded at the earliest preferably within a period of six months. 17. The appeal stands disposed of with the above observations and directions." The Court found merit in the submissions made by Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India. It condoned a delay of 69 days in filing of the appeal.
Earlier Dr. Anshuman had passed the order upon hearing the writ petition filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Commandant, RTC, C.R.P.F., Rajgir vide Letter No. P. VIII -1/2016- Estt.-II (KK) dated August 23, 2016 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and further to quash the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General, RTC, C.R.P.F., Rajgir, Vide Memo No. R-XIII-1/2016- Estt.-2(K.K.) dated November 20, 2016 by which the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. Further prayer has been made to quash Letter No. P. VIII -1/2019- DA-21 dated September 5, 2019 by which the petitioner has been informed that his revision application was rejected by the Inspector General (Training), CRPF Directorate, Central Reserve Police Force as it was time barred. The petitioner had also prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the entire departmental proceedings including the appellate order was passed without following the due procedure of law. He also submitted that upon bare reading of the enquiry report, it became crystal clear that the departmental proceeding was conducted ex-parte without appointing of Presenting Officer which was not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that from the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated November 20, 2016, it transpired that the Appellate Authority had accepted the fact in paragraph 10 of the order that there was no requirement of Presenting Officer in this case, as this case was proceeded as ex-parte and there shall be no effect on the enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had expressly pleaded that as the enquiry was conducted without appointment of the Presenting Officer, the inquiry proceeding is null and void. It was pointed out that Union of India's counter affidavit gave a an evasive reply. It did not deny that the Presenting Officer was not appointed.
The counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph 6 of 10-page long judgment dated September 12, 2018 by the Division Bench of Justices Dr Ravi Ranjan and Madhuresh Prasad of the High Court in Union of India through Director General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi & Ors vs. Sudhanshu Sekhar Deo in L.P.A. No. 955 of 2014. It clearly stated that Non-appointment of the Presenting Officer in the facts of the present case strikes at the root of fairness. He also relied on another judgment dated July 2, 2018 by Supreme Court in paragraph 35 of the Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in AIR (2018) SC 4860, wherein it was noted that the Departmental Proceeding was conducted in absence of the Presenting Officer may not be sustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, it had set aside the report of the Enquiry Authority, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The Court's decision of September 2018 had relied on it as well. In the case of Director General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi & Ors vs. Sudhanshu Sekhar Deo, it was noted that the order of dismissal dated December 31, 2009 was set aside by the Justice Rakesh Kumar, the Single Judge under order dated July 25, 2013 passed in Sudhanshu Shekhar Deo vs The Union of India & Ors. (2013) in CWJC No 7962 of 2011. It recorded: "Till date of passing of the order of dismissal, the petitioner was allowed to discharge his duties and paid salary since he had not been placed under suspension in the said period. However, even though the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held the order of dismissal to be bad, the respondent authorities, showing total disregard to the order of this Court passed by the learned Single Judge, for no justifiable reasons whatsoever, have deprived the petitioner of his right to discharge duties, and fruits of his litigation arising out of the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge." It added:"In such circumstances, this Court would consider it appropriate that the respondents may not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. The records of this appeal reveal that no efforts were made by the respondent authorities to obtain stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the respondent authorities themselves have sat on the order of the learned Single Judge, so as to deprive the petitioner..."
Justice Madhuresh Prasad who authored the judgement concluded:"14 This Court would, thus, have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner would be entitled to all his consequential benefits as a result of the order of the Writ Court dated 25.07.2013. It is expected that the respondent authorities would ensure that the order of the Writ Court is complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15 The writ petitioner/respondent would be entitled to his consequential benefits including full back wages as a result of the order of the Writ Court dated 25.07.2013. 16 The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed."
No comments:
Post a Comment