In Kusum Kumari vs. The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors. (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 16-page long judgement dated November 21, 2025, wherein, it concluded:".....the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from the service is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.03.2018, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and the revisional order dated 13.09.2024 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected are hereby quashed and set aside. 19.Since the impugned order, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service, has been quashed by this Court, the petitioner will be entitled to all admissible consequential and monetary benefits in accordance with law."
Justice Kumar observed: The petitioner while working as CDPO, Gaunaha, was suspended since a criminal case was registered on the allegation that the petitioner and others were engaged in illegal extortion of money from the Anganwadi Sevikas and the vash collected therefrom was kept in the office drawer. During the disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer had found that the charges are not proved against the petitioner however, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry report, had ordered for a fresh enquiry on the ground that the Sevikas/witnesses were not examined during the disciplinary proceedings. From the perusal of the second enquiry report, it appears that the respondent authorities have still failed to adduce and appreciate any evidence/witness to establish the charges alleged against the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents have totally inverted the onus and shifted it directly on the petitioner to prove her innocence."
Justice Kumar relied on High Court's decision in Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar vs. B.S. Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited & Ors. reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Pat 1075 : 2000 (3) PLJR 10,l. It held: "11. Under those rules there are detailed provisions for holding regular departmental enquiry. In holding of a departmental enquiry it is required to prove the charges against the delinquent employee by producing departmental witnesses and the by examining them by the enquiry officer. If the delinquent employee does not attend the enquiry even then the department has to prove the charge by examining the witnesses in support of its own documents. In the departmental enquiry no onus is cast upon the delinquent employee to prove the charges. The charges have to be proved by the department. If no witness is called by the department in support of the charges in that case it should be held that the department has not proved its case and in such a situation the enquiry officer cannot record the findings with regard to guilt against the delinquent employee just because the delinquent employee is absent."
Notably, reference was made to the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. H.C. Goel, reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 364.
Justice Gazendra Gadkar held:-"It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous vare must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules. 16. Since the aforesaid principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has been subsequently followed in many other cases, and has not been departed from till today, this Court cannot accept the bald statement urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the charges are based upon the documents so no witnesses need be examined to bring home the charges. 17. The other grounds on which no witnesses have been produced in the said enquiry is that the petitioner has not demanded an oral enquiry. 18. This Court cannot accept this argument for the reasons already indicated when an enquiry has been ordered by the disciplinary authority and an enquiry officer has been appointed it is not for the petitioner to demand that the department must produce witnesses to prove its case. The onus is never on the delinquent employee, on the other hand, onus is on the department to prove the charges and it is for them to produce their witnesses in support of his case against the delinquent employee. 19. Therefore, in the facts of this case, this Court is constrained to hold that by not producing any evidence in support of its case, the respondent authorities have failed to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. Where charges have not been proved the enquiry report loses all its importance and the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. When a person is thrown out of employment, it must be on the basis of a procedure which is reasonable, just and fair. (See D.K. Jadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., reported in (1993)3 SCC page 259:1994(2) PLJR (SC)55.”
Justice Kumar drew on these decisions of the Supreme Court.
The other ten respondents were: The Additional Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Joint Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Special Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Director, Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) - Cum Director (Programme), ICDS Directorate, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, Deputy Director (Programe), ICDS Directorate, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, District Magistrate, West Champaran, Betiya. District Magistrate, West Madhubani, District Programme Officer, West Champaran, Betiya, and District Programme Officer, Madhubani.
No comments:
Post a Comment