LexSHOBHA SINHA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 427 SHOBHA 31NHA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9366 of 2013) OCTOBER 23, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.] Service Law - Misconduct - Dereliction of duty - Allegation of - Departmental Inquiry - Dismissal of appellant A B - She filed writ petition - Petition allowed by Single Judge of C High Court - Review Committee constituted to revif!W the case of appellant in terms of the directions given by the Single Judge - Review Committee virtually exonerated the appellant from the charges leveled against her except a mild adverse comm.ent - On that basis, as per the direction of the Single D ·~t-·· Judg~; tt;i.~, G,pvernment was required to pass fresh order of . punishment - However, the State Government filed LPA - Order of the Single Judge set aside by the Division Bench - On appeal, held: The Review Committee had categorically stated that only "sign in respect of lack of <;luty appears" and E the enquiry officer had not undertaken deep perusal and analysis of evidentiary documents while conducting the enquiry - On the basis of this element of charge only having been proved, even as· per the departmental authorities, the punishment of dismissal was totally unwarranted - It was not F a case of lack of devotion to duty or any financial irregularities on the part of the appellant - More importantly, the Review Committee, in clear terms, accepted the plea of the appellant that she had put up the proposal in a routine manner and that the main responsibility was that of another person· - On the G report of the Review Committee, appropriate penalty order was to be passed by the State Government which it failed to do after the receipt of the said report - Direction given to respondent-Government to pass penalty order on the basis 427 H 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A of Review Committee repol1 and also the observations of the Single Judge that it was the first case in her entire service career where the appellant faced deparlmental proceedings - Since the punishment to be awarded would not be dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, but lesser B punishment, appellant directed to be reinstated in service forlhwith - Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 - r.24. Letters Patent - Letters ·Patent Appeal - Maintainability - Appellant dismissed from service on charges of misconduct C - She filed writ petition - Review Committee constituted to review the case of appellant in terms of the directions given by Single Judge of High Coul1 - Review Committee virlually exonerated the appellant from the charges leveled against her except a mild adverse comment - On that basis, as per the D direction of the Single Judge, the Government was required to pass fresh order of punishment - However, the State Government filed LPA - Plea raised by appellant regarding maintainability of the LPA - Held: If the State Government was not satisfied with the course of action adopted by the writ coul1 E (Single Judge), proper course was to challenge the order by filing appeal thereagainst - However, it chose to implement the direction passed by the Single Judge and Review Committee, as contemplated under Rule 24 (2) of the CCA Rules, was constituted - But finding that repol1 of the Review F Committee was not palatable to the Government, it decided to challenge the order of the Single Judge - It was too late in the day to do so, after deciding not only to accept the judgment of the Single Judge but even implementing the direction contained therein by constituting the Review G Committee and allowing the Review Committee to accomplish its task- In this backdrop, LPA filed by the State Government should not have been entertained - Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 - r.24. H SHOBHA SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR 429 The appellant, an Assistant in the State Government, A allegedly in her notings made a proposal_ for allotment of Bitumen to a business firm for around 1600 Metric Tonnes without disclosing the factum of misappropriation of 500 Metric Tonnes of Bitumen earlier allotted to the said firm and that an investigation was B pending against the conduct of the firm. It was alleged that the acts of commission and omission of the appellant amounted to lack of bona fide and lack of devotion to duty on account of which the State Government
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.