Patna High Court
Rama Shankar Lal Srivastava vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 June, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8402 of 2016
======================================================
Meera Devi W/o - Late Ramashankar Lal Srivastava, Resident of House no. -
F-47, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.O. - Lohia Nagar, Patna - 20.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and
Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-800001
4. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-
800001.
5. The Chief-of-Claim, Headquarter, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-
800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nutan Kumari Sharma, AC to SC-21
For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 19-06-2025
This Court has heard Mr. Uday Narayan Singh,
learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Nutan Kumari
Sharma, learned Advocate for the State. The Bihar State Food
and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Corporation') is represented through Mr. Shailendra
Kumar Singh, learned Advocate.
2. The case in hand has shaken conscience of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
2/26
Court on noticing the irreparable sufferings on account of
prolong departmental proceeding, as also the whimsical,
capricious and arbitrary order leading to immense mental
trauma, pain, financial crunch and finally the unfortunate death
of the erstwhile employee and his son; now the petitioner, who
is non-else, but the widow of the erstwhile employee has been
pursuing this litigation after the death of her husband during the
pendency of the writ petition on 05.09.2016, who came to be
substituted in view of the order of this Court passed in
interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No. 2150 of 2017.
3. The sad story begins with the joining of the
husband of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer in the
Corporation on 19.07.1974. While the husband of the petitioner
was posted in Giridih for the period 1981 to 1985, in the
meanwhile on account of charges of misappropriation, he was
served with a show-cause and finally exonerated from all the
charges (with minor punishment of censure) upon direction of
the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation vide
Memo no. 12788 dated 18.10.1982 issued under the signature of
Chief Administration (Annexure-3).
4. To the utter surprise, the husband of the
petitioner was again placed under suspension vide office order
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
3/26
dated 30.10.1986 and a memo of charge was duly served upon
him vide letter no. 3181 dated 06.05.1987 and thereby initiated
another departmental proceeding against him. The charges
levelled against the husband of the petitioner were specifically
controverted and a detailed explanation was furnished, which
reiterated in para. 5 of the writ petition. After submission of the
detailed explanation, no further action was taken in the
departmental proceeding; however, in the meanwhile, the
husband of the petitioner was found accountable for loss to the
Corporation to the tune of Rs.1,88,940.61, in the said premise, a
request was made by the petitioner's husband to adjust the same
from his salary, which had not been paid to him during the
interregnum period. In the above mentioned premise, the Chief
(Claim) of the Corporation vide its letter no. 72190 dated
09.12.2000
wrote to the incharge District Manager, SFC, Giridih
that since the process of adjustment is going on, hence he was
directed to inform him not to continue with the proceeding.
Notwithstanding the adjustment of the amount aforenoted, the
husband of the petitioner had been kept deprived from salary for
so many years nor he was accorded any increment and revision
of salary, though the other identically situated persons have been
accorded all the financial benefits. To support the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
4/26
contention, annexure-6 Series to the writ petition have been
placed on record.
5. To the utter surprise of this Court, the
departmental proceeding, which came to be initiated long back
in the year 1986-1987, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry
report on 19.06.2008 holding the charges to be proved, just
before six months of the retirement of the petitioner’s husband.
6. Based upon such enquiry report, the copy of
which is placed on record as Annexure-2, the husband of the
petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of censure,
withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, as also
directed for adjustment of Rs.1,05,507.30 with the payable
amount to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,38,389, vide Memo
No. 5561 dated 07.07.2008. The order of punishment also
contain that the recovery of interest over the recoverable amount
shall be made by the Claim Branch of the Corporation. This
order led to calculation of the interest over the recoverable
amount and accordingly the petitioner was directed to pay an
amount of Rs.4,01,670.71 within a month under Memo No.
6961 dated 26.08.2008, the copy of which is marked as
Annexure-9.
7. Aggrieved with the subjected order, the husband
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
5/26
of the petitioner preferred appeal before the Secretary, Food and
Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna and
simultaneously approached this Court in CWJC. No. 12280 of
2009. The matter was taken up on 15.09.2009. A Bench of this
Court noticed the fact that there was salary arrears payable to
the petitioner to the extent of Rs.1,38,389/- by the Corporation
in respect of period 1993-94; and after culmination of
departmental proceeding a claim of Rs.1,05,667.20 was raised
against the petitioner for the alleged loss/misappropriation of
stocks with a further direction to adjust the amount with interest
at the rate of 18% on the said amount up to 2007-08. The Court,
in view of the fact, prima facie, observed that the Corporation
would also be liable to pay interest @ 18% on the arrears of
salary of the said amount of Rs.1,38,389 from the time it was
due up to date. However, since the pleading was not complete,
therefore, the matter was taken up on different dates and finally
it came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.01.2018 with a
categorical finding that “Per se the action of the Corporation
cannot be approved specially when the Corporation is not
paying interest to the petitioner at the same rate over his out-
standing dues, but charging interest over the amount recoverable
against the petitioner. If the Corporation intends to take interest
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
6/26
they should be ready to pay the interest in equal term. There
cannot be unilateral claim of interest by the Corporation. The
Court further directed that after adjustment of principal amount
rest payment should be made to the petitioner, as it has been
informed that even after death of the employee no retrial dues
have been paid. It was made clear that if the death-cum-retiral
benefits have not been accorded within two months, it will carry
interest of 9%.
8. It is also noticed while appeal preferred by the
erstwhile employee remain pending for a log period, a fresh
Memo of appeal came to be filed, which was numbered as
Appeal no. 311/2015, however, the same came to be rejected by
the Appellate Authority -cum-Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Bihar, Patna, as contained in Memo
no.2189 dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure-11).
9. Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, learned Advocate for
the petitioner while assailing the impugned action and the order
of the respondent Corporation has vehemently contended that
once the husband of the petitioner has already been exonerated
with the minor punishment of censure and further the amount, if
any, found payable to the Corporation had already been adjusted
from the salary of the petitioner’s husband. Initiation of fresh
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
7/26
departmental proceeding and inflicting the major punishment of
withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, besides
recovery of Rs.1,05,507/30 with 18% interest till the order is
passed, out and out wholly arbitrary, illegal and without
jurisdiction.
10. Taking this Court through the enquiry report, as
also the written defence of the erstwhile employee reiterated in
para. no.5 of the writ petition, it is contended that none of the
charges stood proved; once the recoverable amount had already
been adjusted from the due salary of the petitioner’s husband
long back in the year 2000 itself, no due remained to levy
interest over as imposed under letters dated 07.07.2008 and
26.08.2008. The enquiry report suffers from erroneous findings
of fact and the disciplinary as well as appellate authority
concurred the findings of the enquiry officer in a mechanical
manner ignoring the facts, circumstances and explanation put
forth by the charged employee. It is lastly contended that long
ordeal has led the erstwhile employee to suffer loss of his son
and himself on account of financial crunch. The husband of the
petitioner died due to lack of money for treatment, as his leg
was amputated because of developing gangrene. To support the
aforesaid facts, disability certificate dated 26.01.1949
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
8/26
(Annexure-12) has also been placed on record.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kumar
Singh, learned Advocate for the Corporation has submitted that
the charges levelled against the petitioner’s husband stood
proved in the departmental proceeding, after affording proper
opportunity to rebut the allegation, but he failed to do so. An
amount of Rs.1,05.507 was found recoverable. Based upon the
enquiry report, the petitioner’s husband was inflicted with the
punishment, as contained in Memo No. 5561 dated 07.07.2008
passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The
husband of the petitioner had also been given full opportunity
for production of document/evidence to support the grounds
raised in the appeal. However, he failed to provide the same and
thus the appeal also came to be rejected by the Appellate
Authority vide Memo no. 2189 dated 04.04.2016. the
petitioner’s husband has failed to point out any legal infirmities
in the departmental proceeding as well as appellate order, hence
the orders impugned do not require any interference. He
reminded while exercising the judicial review, the Court cannot
re-appreciate the evidence.
12. Having given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
9/26
respective parties and on meticulous perusal of the record, prima
facie, this Court finds that the facts of the case is quite alarming
that on account of certain proposed dereliction of duty, the
erstwhile employee has been subjected to suffer his entire life
and unfortunately could not be wriggled out from it even after
his retirement and till he breathed his last and yet the widow of
the deceased employee has been still facing the wrath of the
departmental proceeding and its adverse effect.
13. Before parting with the case in hand, it would
be worth benefiting to mention hereunder; The relevant extracts
of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 104 and Delhi Administration Vs.
Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3737,
wherein the Court summarized and reminded us that the
ultimate aim of the law is to secure justice. Justice is a virtue
which transcends all barriers. Justice cries in silence for long,
far too long, justice fails when judges quail. Though justice is
depicted to be blindfolded, as popularly said, it is only a veil not
to see who the party before it is while pronouncing judgment on
the cause brought before it by enforcing law and administer
justice and not to ignore or turn the mind/attention of the court
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
10/26
away from the truth of the cause or lis before it, in disregard of
its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice.
14. The facts are admitted and the averments made
in the writ petition has not even been confronted and any pain
has been taken on the part of the Corporation to give parawise
statement to the writ petition, except their contention that based
upon the enquiry report the petitioner was inflicted with the
subjected punishment, which was duly affirmed in appeal, no
effort is taken to dispel the grounds of challenge put forth in the
writ petition.
15. It is not in dispute, the husband of the petitioner
was subjected to departmental enquiry long back in the year
1982 when he was exonerated from all the charges with the
punishment of censure and warring to remain attentive in future
vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Notwithstanding the facts
of exoneration, as noted hereinabove, the petitioner’s husband
was subjected to fresh departmental proceeding, inter alia, with
some additional charges in the year 1987 after placing the
petitioner’s husband on suspension in the year 1986. More than
20 years have consumed to give the finding of guilt against the
delinquent and finally he was inflicted with the major penalty
just before his superannuation. There is no explanation for this
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
11/26
inordinate delay.
16. Indubitably, departmental enquiry puts an
employee under great mental agony, strain and stigma causing
serious repercussion on his family as well. It is settled position
that departmental enquiry/proceeding should be initiated
without delay and once initiated should be completed
expeditiously.
17. The Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan, reported in, (1998) 4 SCC 154
has held that it is not possible to lay down any pre-determined
principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where
there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Hence
the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated
has to be examined on the facts and circumstance of that case. It
was observed that the essence of the matter is that the court has
to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and
weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and
honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should
be allowed to terminate after delay, particularly there is delay in
abnormal and there is no explanation for the same. The Court
emphasized that the delinquent employee has a right that
disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
12/26
expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and
also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged
without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. If the
delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is
writ large on the face of it, which certainly vitiates the
disciplinary proceeding, however, normally the disciplinary
proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant
rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to
the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when
there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the
disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance
these two diverse consideration.
18. In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Chaman Lal Goyal, reported in, (1995) 2 SCC 570, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that inordinate and explained delay
in the completion of departmental proceedings can vitiates the
enquiry, especially when it causes prejudice to the employee
after weighing the factors for and against and taking decision on
the totality of circumstances, the Court emphasized the need for
accountability and cautioned the authorities to avoid such delay.
19. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
13/26
reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56, recognized that accountability can
be fixed on inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, if they
act, inter alia, in a biased or arbitrary manner or if there is prima
facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the
discharge of his duty or acted negligently or that he omitted the
prescribed conditions, which are essential for the exercise of
statutory powers.
20. The emphasis on expeditious disposal of
departmental proceeding is also duly recognized and admitted
by the Corporation is also apparent from the Bihar State Food &
Civil Supplies Corporation “Service Conduct and Disciplinary
Rules”, which came into force w.e.f. June, 1st, 2001, in
suppression of all the previous rules in this regard. It was made
clear that the Rules shall apply to all the employees of the
Corporation and any pending action initiated under previous
rules shall be concluded under the said rules. The rules
contemplates punishment and procedure for dealing with cases
of misconduct; Rule 25 deals with “Punishment”, whereas, Rule
26 stipulates “Minor Punishment” and Rule 27 “Major
Punishment”. Rule 28 talks about the “Procedure for dealing
with cases of Misconduct”; in case of minor punishment the
delinquent is informed regarding the alleged act of omission and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
14/26
commission on his part directing therein to submit his reply
within seven days. If he fails to submit his reply or found it to
be unsatisfactory, the minor punishment may be inflicted
without further correspondence.
21. Likewise, where an employee is found, prima
facie, guilty for any misconduct, which may result in major
punishment, the charges against the delinquent employee must
be communicated in writing, giving him a time of 15 days to
submit his reply. If the delinquent either failed to submit the
reply or it is found unsatisfactory, a departmental proceeding
will be drawn against him immediately, with the approval of the
competent authority. However, such departmental proceeding
shall be concluded within a period of three months. It is also
contemplated that after the submission of enquiry report, the
competent authority may accept such finding or may direct the
enquiry officer to further enquire into the charges, as the case
may be. The competent authority may also differ with the
finding of the enquiry officer. Further any order of the
competent authority, as authorized under the Rules of the
Corporation for inflicting major punishment on the delinquent
employee shall be passed after communicating to the employee
the charges along with statement of imputation of misconduct,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
15/26
misbehaviour on which they are based along with the findings
of the enquiry officer in writing and major penalty, which is
contemplated against the delinquent employee. A period of 15
clear days shall be given the delinquent employee to submit
written defence, if any, in his defence. After expiry of 15 days,
the competent authority may pass final order, which shall take
effect on the date, such order is passed.
22. Admittedly, in the case in hand, though the
proceeding was initiated long back in the year 1987, but after
coming into force of the Service Conduct of Disciplinary Rules
in the year, 2001, which was also applicable in the pending
departmental proceeding, the respondent authorities failed to
adhere to with the prescription prescribed in the Rules and given
a complete go-bye to it, as is evident from the manner in which
the Corporation proceeded and inflicted punishment. There is
nothing on record which suggests that before inflicting the
punishment, the delinquent was served with any show-cause
notice or given an opportunity to file his written defence to
rebut the findings of the enquiry officer. Hence, in the opinion
of this Court, the Rules applicable to the employees of the
Corporation has been completely over-looked and the entire
action of the Corporation is in fact in transgression to the same.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
16/26
23. The facts of the case also demonstrate that the
husband of the petitioner was holding the post of Stenographer
and he was all along available in the department since inception.
In no stretch of imagination, the delinquent is blamed for the
delay, moreover it is not the case of the Corporation that
because of the act of the delinquent, the delay has occurred.
Indubitably, in the interregnum period (twenty five long years)
of initiation of departmental enquiry/ proceeding, till its
culmination by passing of the final order of punishment, the
charged employee has been deprived from any financial
upgradation, including salary, increment, revision of pay and the
time bound promotion that has been given to other identically
situated persons. The protracted departmental proceeding
depriving an employee from all his service benefits for a pretty
long time is bound to cause immense prejudice; and constant
strain and pain suffered by him can not be compensated.
24. It would also be pertinent to note here that soon
after the initiation of 2nd departmental proceeding in the year
1987, the husband of the petitioner filed his detailed defence
statement and thereafter the Corporation has not taken any
action for a long time and thus it was deemed to be accepted at
the level of Enquiry Officer and/or the competent authority. This
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
17/26
fact also fortified when after passage of more than a decade, the
Corporation had come out with the letter issued under the
signature of Chief (Claim) dated 09.12.2000 (Annexure-4) that
the adjustment of the amount, which was found due against the
delinquent is going on, on the request of the delinquent itself,
hence the proceeding may be terminated. This order was also
issued in pursuant to the direction of the competent authority, as
is evident from the letter itself.
25. The action of the Corporation causing
adjustment of the amount found due against the husband of the
petitioner, however, did not quench the thirst of the Corporation
and the proceeding has not been given a quietus and again after
eight years when the husband of the petitioner was about to
superannuate, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report
giving finding of charges stood proved.
26. This Court has also meticulously examined the
enquiry report and found that the charges said to have been
proved are not based upon any admissible oral and documentary
evidence. The enquiry officer has disabled himself from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to
the evidence and merit of the case and in fact allowed himself to
be influenced by extraneous consideration. The entire enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
18/26
suffers from various legal infirmities, coupled with the fact that
the enquiry officer while performing the quasi judicial function
has not acted an independent adjudicator, which was expected
under the law from him.
27. The enquiry officer is not supposed to be
representative of the department (disciplinary authority/
Government). His function is to examine the evidence presented
by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official
to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved, this Court has no hesitation to
observe that in the case in hand the aforesaid procedure has not
been observed. The due importance and role of the enquiry
officer has been highlighted in the case of State of U.P. & Ors
Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772
wherein the Apex Court ruled that if a Departmental enquiry is
conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated
as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be
wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be
observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly
seen to be done.
28. The claim of the Corporation with respect to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
19/26
18% interest over the due amount against the husband of the
petitioner was put to challenge before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
12280 of 2009 wherein the action of the Corporation has been
completely disapproved, since the recovery of the amount to the
tune of Rs.1,05,667.20, which is calculated against the amount
of shortage of the food-grains, has already been adjusted and
this issue has been considered in earlier round of litigation, this
Court would not make any observation in this regard at least to
the extent it has already been set at rest and not challenged by
either of the parties.
29. So far the order of punishment to the extent, the
husband of the petitioner was subjected to withholding of five
increments with cumulative effect, apart from the punishment of
censure is concerned, the same is now under consideration
before this Court. Apart from the other infirmities, it does not
stand to the test of rule of law. This Court finds that there is not
at all any independent application of mind before inflicting the
punishment, apart from the same is capricious, non-speaking, is
based upon no reason. The impugned order of punishment is out
and out based upon the enquiry report, wherein the charges have
been said to be proved. This Court is tempted to quote the
relevant extract of the impugned order, which reads thus:
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
20/26“dk;kZy; & vkns”k
fuxe ds Kkikad & 100004 fnukad 03-08-
1988 }kjk Jh jkek”kadj yky JhokLro] rkRdkyhu
vk”kqfyfid] iVuk ¼xzkeh.k½ orZeku esa lEizfr futh lgk;d]
miHkksDrk laj{k.k funs”kky;] fcgkj] iVuk ds fo:) fxfjMhg
ftyk ds inLFkkiu vof/k esa ik;h x;h xM+cM+h ds lEcU/k esa
vkjksi&i= izi=&^d^ esa xfBr dj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pyk;h
x;hA
foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vkjksih ls izkIr cpko &
i=] xokgksa ds c;ku] miyC/k lk{; ,oa izHkkjh ftyk izca/kd]
fxfjMhg dk earO; ds leh{kksijkar ,oa tk¡pksijkar Jh JhokLro
ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi la0 01 ls 03 rd izekf.kr ik;k
x;k gSA
vr% Jh JhokLro ds fo:) pyk;h tk jgh
foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks lekIr djrs gq, fuEukafdr n.M
fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS%&
d& Jh JhokLro ds fo:) pyk;h tk jgh
foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh mUgsa Hkqxrs; jkf”k :0 1]38]389]00 ls
lek;ksftr fd;k tk;xkA
[k& bUgsa fuUnu dh ltk nh tkrh gSA
x & Jh JhokLro dk ikWp osru o`f)
lap;kRed izHkko ls jksdh tkrh gSA
?k& lwn dh jkf”k dh olwyh dh dkjZokbZ nkok
“kk[kk }kjk dh tk;xhA
izcU/k funs”kd ds vkns”k lsA
g0@&
izeq[k iz”kkluA”
30. The husband of the petitioner has neither been
given any show-cause notice nor opportunity to rebut the
finding of the enquiry officer before inflicting the punishment
and thus in any circumstances, there is no compliance of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
21/26
principles of natural justice.
31. Time without number, the Apex Court as well
as this Court has reminded the Tribunal and the quasi judicial
authority that the final order must display complete application
of mind to the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice, the
defence taken in reply, followed by at least a brief analysis of
the defence supported by reasons why it was not acceptable. To
hold that the cause shown can be cursorily rejected in one line
by saying that it was not satisfactory or acceptable would held
to vesting completely arbitrary and uncanalised powers in the
authority. The giving of reasons in such a situation is an
absolute imperative and a facet of natural justice. The
importance of giving reasons has been emphasized and
explained by the Apex Court in the case of M/S Kranti Asso.
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported
in (2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein the Court, inter alia, held that a
quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions, inasmuch, as recording of reasons also operates as
a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial
and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. It is the
reasons, which facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts. No reason whatsoever has been assigned before
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
22/26
inflicting the punishment, hence any appeal preferred against
the order aforenoted was nothing but an empty formality, that
has been done in the present case.
32. The appeal preferred by the delinquent, the
husband of the petitioner, has been rejected without making any
deliberation and the discussions of the grounds raised in the
Memo of Appeal. There is manifest illegality in the impugned
order passed in appeal wherein the same came to be rejected in
one line that ^^ ikfjr vkns”k iw.kZr% rF;ijd ,oa fof/k lEer gS^^-
33. In the considered opinion of this Court, such
orders have no sanction in the eye of law. The reasons have been
held to be the heart and soul of an order giving insight to the
mind of the maker of the order, and that he considered all
relevant aspect and discarded irrelevant aspects. Both the
disciplinary as well as appellate authority conveniently without
discussing the matter rejected it by simply stating that the order
is in accordance with law, which at all is not in compliance with
the principles of natural justice.
34. This Court is appalled to see that the
departmental proceeding, which was initiated in 1987, the final
order of punishment came to be passed in 2008 after more than
20 years in a most cryptic and capricious manner and later on,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
23/26
the appeal came to be rejected in the year 2016 i.e. after 29
years by one line order that since the charges stood proved, the
impugned order of punishment is in accordance with law.
35. Before holding the impugned orders untenable
and not sustainable in the eyes of law, this Court can not lose
sight of the miserable facts of the case. The delinquent was
appointed in the year 1974 and since 1981 till his death on
05.09.2016 he was subjected to protracted departmental
proceeding. 35 years of his golden period of life have been
completely snatched away by the Corporation in the name of
departmental proceeding. Nonetheless, the delinquent deceased
husband had given approval for adjustment of the loss allegedly
caused to the Corporation and that has already been adjusted;
much less, the Chief (Claim) pursuant to the direction of the
competent authority has requested to bring the departmental
proceeding to an end, but the same has not been done. In the
meantime, the deceased lost his son, thereafter he also died in
the same way facing the financial crunch and the endless wrath
of the Corporation.
36. It would be worth benefiting to state that in a
landmark judgment of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD., Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, reported in, (2005) 6 SCC 636, the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
24/26
Supreme Court held that inordinate, unexplained, and prolonged
delay in initiating or concluding departmental proceeding
vitiates the proceeding and amounts to harassment rendering the
entire inquiry liable to be quashed. The Court following the
decision of N. Radhakishan (supra) and State of M.P. Vs. Bani
Singh, reported in, AIR 1990 SC 1308, has observed that such
delays, especially when not attributable to the delinquent
employee, lead to grave prejudice, prolonged mental agony,
reputational damages and economic uncertainty, thereby
violating the foundational principles of natural justice. The
Court further emphasized that the purpose of disciplinary
proceedings is to ensure fairness and accountability, not to
punish individuals through procedural abuse and endless
uncertainty. The decision underscores that no benefit accrues to
the public interest by allowing stale proceedings to continue
after a decade of inaction and that doing so is neither just nor
legally sustainable.
37. Applied to the present case, where the deceased
employee suffered the brunt of an inquiry spanning more than
two decades, with no fault attributed to him, no meaningful
redressal or irreversible loss of livelihood, dignity and
eventuality life itself; Thus in the opinion of this precedent laid
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
25/26
down in the case of P.V. Mahadevan (supra) reinforces that the
inquiry and the punishment stand vitiated and held to be
unsustainable and thereby violative of the fundamental right to
life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
38. On account of the reasons aforenoted, this
Court has no hesitation to set aside both the impugned orders
dated 07.07.2008, as contained in Memo No. 5561 as also the
order as contained in Memo No. 2198 dated 04.04.2016 holding
it to be unsustainable in law. On account of setting aside of the
impugned orders, the petitioner shall be entitled to all the
consequential benefits at par with the benefits, which have been
accorded to the other identically situated employees to her
deceased husband, including the pay revision, salary, increment,
time bound promotion etc. Apart from the aforesaid
consequential benefits, the Corporation shall pay an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) compensation to the petitioner on
account of sufferings due to prolong departmental proceeding
and its consequences, which in no circumstances can be
compensated in terms of money, but the facts of this case
warrants to pass such order. The amount of compensation shall
which also include litigation cost.
39. The entire calculation and the payment must be
Patna High Court CWJC No.8402 of 2016 dt. 19-06-2025
26/26
done preferably within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case of any
defiance of the order, the petitioner shall be entitled to get
interest @ 9% over the due amount, till the actual payment is
made, which shall be recoverable from the erring officials.
40. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 02.05.2025 Uploading Date 25.06.2025 Transmission Date NA