Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18183 of 2008. Case: Navin Kumar Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18183 of 2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Bidhanesh Misra and Tanuja Mishra, Advs. and For Respondents: Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, A.C. to PAAG |
| Judges | Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | May 14, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
-
A set of 15 charges was drawn against the petitioner. The details of which is available as Annexure-12. Out of 15 charges, the enquiry officer found the petitioner partially guilty of charge No. 5, 14 and 15. These three findings in relation to those charges point towards one fact that the petitioner is intemperate, if not indiscreet in his conduct while dealing with superior authorities or officers while he was posted as a Treasury Officer at Ara. Other serious charges against him did not stick to him and the explanation offered by the petitioner on the rest of the charges were accepted and held in favour. After the second show cause and due consideration of the explanation offered initially eight increments with cumulative effect was withheld with bar to promotion till the year 2016. The orders of punishment are contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure 17, which are dated 11.8.2008 and 5.9.2008 respectively. Petitioner wanted quashing of the said orders. Some more developments, however, have taken place. Subsequently the punishment of withholding of eight increments was reduced to three but the bar to promotion till 2016 remained.
-
The Court has gone through the charges and the findings extensively. From a reading of the materials, it is evident that petitioner has not been dishonest in performance of his duties as such but he is dealing with his colleagues or superiors in communication- oral or written does not behave a government servant. Those findings stick to the petitioner. Probably, the lack of dishonest intent on the part of the petitioner ultimately carried the day for him and punishment of withholding of increments is finally reduced to three instead of eight.
-
In totality of the circumstances, the Court does not find any omission or aberration in the procedure followed as well as the findings which came to be arrived at. If there was an occasion to interfere with Annexure 1 that seems to have been rectified by scaling down the withholding of increments to three now as would be evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondents. This order is dated...
To continue reading
Request your trial