ORIGINAL PETITION 14083 of 2012 on 18 March 2000

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary Home (Jail) Department

3. Inspector General of Prison Bihar, Patna

4. Director Administration , Jail Department, Bihar, Patna

5. Jail Superintendent, Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna

6. Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Barh.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Satyendra Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s: SC-5======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHYORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 13-10-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The original petitioner Kapildeo Prasad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) having died during pendencyof this application was substituted by his legal heirs, the petitioners herein.

3. The petitioner filed the instant application for thefollowing reliefs :- “1(i) To quash the order ofpunishment issued vide Memo no. 2355 dated7.6.2010 (at Annexure-12) by the I.G. PrisionBihar, Patna whereby and wherein the petitionerdepartmental proceeding has been imposed withpunishment.

(ii) To set aside the order of thesecretary Home department Bihar, Patna issuedvide Memo no. 4224 dated 10.10.11 whereby theappeal of the petitioner against theaforementioned punishment was rejected(Annexure-12/1).”

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that having been appointed as Jail Warden on 11.10.1991, while posted atSub-Jail, Barh on 18.3.2000 the petitioner was placed undersuspension on the allegations of carelessness and failure toperform his duties responsibly on account of eight prisonershaving escaped from the main gate of the Sub-Jail, Barh at 8a.m. on 18.3.2000. A departmental proceeding was initiatedagainst the petitioner and he was served with a charge-sheet on16.11.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply and a report withrespect to preliminary enquiry conducted by the Director,Administration, Home Jail Department and former Jail Superintendent, Beur was submitted to the I.G., Prison. TheI.G., Prison expressed his dissatisfaction to the report andordered conducting a fresh enquiry appointing the JailSuperintendent, Beur as the Conducting Officer.

5. As directed, the petitioner appeared before the newConducting Officer and requested him to make available certaindocuments, all of which were not provided to him. Thepetitioner submitted his reply denying the charges and alsomentioning therein that he had not been provided with crucialdocuments in preparing his defence.

6. In the enquiry report submitted by the ConductingOfficer, the charges against the petitioner were found to beproved. Enclosing a copy of the enquiry report, the petitionerwas issued with a second show-cause notice asking him tosubmit his reply within 15 days.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he once againrequested the Joint Secretary–cum–Director, Home JailDepartment through the Superintendent, Mandal Jail, Sasaramto provide certain documents, however the petitioner was notprovided the same.

8. By order dated 7.6.2010, the petitioner wasinflicted with the following punishments i.e. (i) demoted on the

initial/lower pay of Warder with the further stipulation thatduring this period the annual increment shall be withheld for 3years with cumulative effect; (ii) after 3 years the annualincrement shall be given for the rest service period for the initialpay; (iii) no promotion will be granted for 5 years; and (iv) Noamount except the subsistence allowance shall be paid for theperiod of suspension, however this period shall be counted forthe purpose of pension.

9. The petitioner by his letter dated 24.7.2010 onceagain made a request before the respondents for providing thedocuments to enable him to file an appeal before the AppellateAuthority. Once again he was not provided with the documents.The petitioner filed his appeal which was rejected by theAppellate Authority on 10.10.2011. It is against the order ofpunishment dated 7.6.2010 and the order dated 10.10.2011 ofthe Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal that the instantapplication has been filed.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for thepetitioner that the documents repeatedly asked for by thepetitioner for filing his reply to the charge-sheet as also thesecond show-cause notice were absolutely essential to enablehim to file an effective reply. The respondents not having made the same available the same is a serious lapse in thedepartmental proceedings. It is further submitted that onsubmission of the enquiry report, the respondent- I.G., Prison,Bihar by his order dated 31.7.2009 rejected the same andordered another enquiry to be conducted appointing theSuperintendent of Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna as theConducting Officer and the Assistant Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Barh as the Presenting Officer. Learned counsel submitsthat the said order which gives no reason for rejection of theenquiry report and commencing a fresh enquiry is notsustainable. It is further submitted in reference to the charge-sheet and the subsequent enquiry report that neither the sameprovided the list of witnesses who would be examined inproving the charges against the petitioner nor in course ofenquiry was any witness examined. It is thus submitted that forthese as also other reasons, the order of punishment as also theorder rejecting the appeal of the petitioner are not sustainableand as such, the writ application be allowed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of hissubmissions has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases ofGanpati Singh vs. Board of Directors and AppellateAuthority & Ors.; 2013 (3) PLJR 258, Kanailal Bera vs.

Union of India & Ors.; (2007) 11 SCC 517 & Union of Indiavs. K.D. Pandey & Anr.; (2002) 10 SCC 471.

12. In response, it is submitted by learned counselappearing for the respondents that all the relevant and availabledocuments were supplied to the petitioner. At every stage of theproceeding adequate opportunity was given to him to defendhimself. The petitioner was informed by the Conducting Officerthat it was not possible to supply all the documents as desired byhim. In addition the petitioner was also given adequateopportunity to present his case in person before the ConductingOfficer. In the enquiry report, the Conducting Officer found thepetitioner to be responsible for dereliction of duty and as suchhe was served with a second show-cause notice along with acopy of the enquiry report to which the petitioner filed his reply.After considering his reply, the order of punishment was passed.All the points raised by the petitioner were considered properlyby the Appellate Authority who not finding any merit in thesame rejected the appeal. It is submitted that there is no merit inthe instant application filed by the petitioner and as such thewrit application be dismissed.

13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners andlearned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

14. The facts in brief are that the incidence of escapeof eight prisoners having taken place from Sub-Jail, Barh on18.3.2000 at 8 a.m., the petitioner who was then posted as JailWarden at the Barh Sub-Jail was placed under suspension andwas proceeded against in a departmental proceeding on theallegation of carelessness and failure to perform his dutiesresponsibly. The petitioner filed his reply to the show-causenotice on which the Conducting Officer submitted his enquiryreport, however the I.G., Prison came out with a cryptic orderdated 31.7.2009 (Annexure-4) stating that the enquiry report notbeing satisfactory another enquiry was ordered appointing SriOm Prakash Gupta, Superintendent of Adarsh Central Jail, Beur,Patna as the Conducting Officer and Sri Sanjay Kumar,Assistant Jailer, Barh, Sub-Jail as the Presenting Officer.

15. It may be mentioned here that once the enquiryhad proceeded and in the same enquiry report had beensubmitted, even if the disciplinary authority was not inclined toaccept the enquiry report, they were required to provide a copyof the same to the petitioner along with an order recording thereasons for their disagreement with the contents thereof. In theopinion of the Court they could not have brushed aside the enquiry report, not providing a copy of the same to thepetitioner and directing a fresh enquiry appointing anotherConducting Officer and Presenting Officer.

16. It further transpires from various communicationsbrought by the petitioner as annexures to the writ applicationthat even thereafter before submitting his reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner asked for certain documents to be providedto enable him to file an effective reply. These were the evidencewith the charge-sheet i.e. a copy of the joint inspection report ofthe Director, Administration and Sri Balmohan Naik,Superintendent of Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, the register of thevisitors on 18.3.2000 together with the applications filed formeeting the prisoners, the duty register with respect todeputation of Home Guards and BMP Guards on 18.3.2000, thegate register on 18.3.2000, the duty register of the Jail WarderCadre for 18.3.2000, the report of the Jailer, the statement ofdifferent persons recorded in context of the escape of theprisoners as also the register at the prison gate meant forfrisking of the prisoners. It further transpires that he wasprovided with one of the documents with a further assurance bythe Conducting Officer by his memo dated 8.9.2009 that theremaining documents will be provided to him as soon as the same are available. The petitioner proceeded to file his replywithout the documents having been supplied to him and even inhis reply dated 22.10.2009 raised the point of non-supply of thedocuments.

17. Reference may be made to the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh& Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein theHon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph nos. 28, 30, 34 and 39as follows :- “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of anindependent adjudicator. He is not supposed to bea representative of the department/disciplinaryauthority/Government. His function is to examinethe evidence presented by the Department, even inthe absence of the delinquent official to see as towhether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient tohold that the charges are proved. In the presentcase the aforesaid procedure has not beenobserved. Since no oral evidence has beenexamined the documents have not been proved,and could not have been taken into considerationto conclude that the charges have been provedagainst the respondents.

……….. ……… ……… ……… ……...30.When a departmental enquiry isconducted against the government servant itcannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conductedwith a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to bewholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice arerequired to be observed to ensure not only thatjustice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.The object of rules of natural justice is to ensurethat a government servant is treated fairly inproceedings which may culminate in imposition ofpunishment including dismissal/removal fromservice.

……….. ……… ……… ……… ……...

34. This Court in Kashinath Dikshita v.Union of India [(1986) 3 SCC 229 : 1986 SCC(L&S) 502 : (1986) 1 ATC 176], had clearly statedthe rationale for the rule requiring supply ofcopies of the documents, sought to be relied uponby the authorities to prove the charges levelledagainst a government servant. In that case theenquiry proceedings had been challenged on theground that non-supply of the statements of thewitnesses and copies of the documents hadresulted in the breach of rules of natural justice.The appellant therein had requested for supply ofthe copies of the documents as well as thestatements of the witnesses at the preliminaryenquiry. The request made by the appellant was interms turned down by the disciplinary authority.

……….. ……… ……… ……… ……...

39. The proposition of law that agovernment employee facing a departmentalenquiry is entitled to all the relevant statements,documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself inthe departmental enquiry against the charges istoo well established to need any furtherreiteration. Nevertheless given the facts of thiscase we may re-emphasise the law as stated bythis Court in State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram[(1975) 1 SCC 155 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 18] : (SCCp. 156, paras 6-8)

“6. The State contended that therespondent was not entitled to get copies ofstatements. The reasoning of the State wasthat the respondent was given theopportunity to cross-examine the witnessesand during the cross-examination therespondent would have the opportunity ofconfronting the witnesses with thestatements. It is contended that the synopsiswas adequate to acquaint the respondentwith the gist of the evidence.

7. The meaning of a reasonableopportunity of showing cause against theaction proposed to be taken is that thegovernment servant is afforded a reasonableopportunity to defend himself againstcharges on which inquiry is held. Thegovernment servant should be given anopportunity to deny his guilt and establishhis innocence. He can do so when he is toldwhat the charges against him are. He can doso by cross-examining the witnessesproduced against him. The object ofsupplying statements is that the government servant will be able to refer to the previousstatements of the witnesses proposed to beexamined against the government servant.Unless the statements are given to thegovernment servant he will not be able tohave an effective and useful cross-examination.

8. It is unjust and unfair to deny thegovernment servant copies of statements ofwitnesses examined during investigationand produced at the inquiry in support ofthe charges levelled against thegovernment servant. A synopsis does notsatisfy the requirements of giving thegovernment servant a reasonableopportunity of showing cause against theaction proposed to be taken.”

18. On perusal of the enquiry report in the instant case

it transpires that the same does not deal with the documentsasked for by the petitioner not having been supplied to him nordoes the Conducting Officer states in his report as to how thosedocuments are irrelevant for the proceedings. In absence of thedocuments having been supplied to the petitioner as also theConducting Officer not having dealt with in his report as to whythe documents were not being supplied or as to why the samewere irrelevant, in the opinion of the Court, the departmentalproceedings stands vitiated by severe procedural irregularities.

19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the caseas discussed herein above, the order impugned dated 7.6.2010passed by the I.G., Prison, Bihar, Patna imposing punishment onthe petitioner as also the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by theSecretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna rejecting the appealfiled by the petitioner, both being unsustainable are hereby setaside.

20. The writ application is allowed with allconsequential benefits which shall be paid to the petitionerswithin a period of 3 months.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

avinash/-

AFR/NAFRNAFRCAV DATEN/AUploading Date14.10.2025Transmission Date