Deepak Roshan, J
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the punishment order dated 17.12.12 wherein the petitioner was punished with stoppage of four increments with cumulative effects and censure. The Petitioner has further prayed for the quashing of the second show cause notice and the enquiry as conducted against the Petitioner.
During the pendency of the writ petition, interlocutory application IA No. 8049 of 2017 was filed for the addition of a prayer, seeking quashing of the order dated 23.03.2016 wherein the appellate authority had reduced the punishment of stoppage of two increment with non-cumulative effect. The same was allowed vide order dated 14.8.2025.
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as the Block Development Officer of Kisko Block within the district of Lohardaga. During his period as the Block Development Officer, a proposal was made for a Jatropha plantation project to be carried out in two villages within the Kisko Block, i.e., villages Nari and Hondaga. The said proposal was sanctioned and approved vide memo bearing no. 134(ii)/ORG dated 21.11.2006. It was submitted that the entire project was to be carried out by an NGO namely Swablamban, and the role of the petitioner was limited to entering into agreements with the concerned committees and transfer of funds upon receipt of necessary documents.
3. The petitioner, in discharge of his official duties, executed a Memorandum of Understanding and three agreements, all dated 15.12.2006, to ensure that the plantation project is executed within the fixed deadline of 30.07.2007. Pursuant to the agreement and after verification of the necessary documents, the petitioner transferred the sanctioned funds and continued to monitor the progress of the project by conducting various meetings, issuing directions, reminders, etc. The petitioner continued to work in the Kisko Block till 2.03.2009, after which he was transferred to another block, i.e., the Bharno Block.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a flying squad was constituted by the district administration to look into the allegation of the irregularities in projects constituted under NREGS; this included the inspection of the Jatropha Plantation Project. The Flying Squad after their inspection, submitted a report on 21.09.2010, on basis of which departmental proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner. The petitioner was informed of the charges against him vide letter dated 2.12.2011, wherein charges were framed on five counts. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same, however, without considering the submissions of the petitioner, a second show cause was issued on 4.8.2012, wherein the petitioner was held guilty on all counts.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that the entire action stands vitiated on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice and procedural impropriety and has been conducted with a pre-meditated mind-set. Learned counsel contended that the very inception of the impugned proceedings is bad in the eye of law, as the enquiry of the flying squad was done behind the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the flying squad has inspected Jatropha Plantation Project almost three years after the completion of the project, and as such, discrepancies, if any, could not be attributed to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner further contended that the second show cause notice is non est in the eye of law as it fails to disclose the proposed punishment. The entire purpose for the issuance of a second cause is to give an opportunity to the employee to defend himself against the punishment being proposed against him. He has placed reliance on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Ratan, reported in 1980 Supp. SCC 198.
It was next contended that the entire proceeding against the petitioner was with a premeditated mindset. The petitioner has placed strong reliance on the note-sheet which was obtained by taking recourse under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The note-sheet reveals that punishment was approved on 18.7.2012, i.e., even before the second show cause was issued to the petitioner. Moreso, the note-sheet shows that a senior authority had exonerated the petitioner; however, the recommendation in favour of the petitioner was overridden without any basis. The entire procedure was therefore reduced to a mere formality, and the punishment order was passed without proper and due application of mind.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent-State has contended that the instant writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of the presence of an alternative remedy. On the merits of the case, it is submitted that the memorandum of understanding and the agreements reveal that the petitioner was responsible for all the work done by the NGO and the committee for the Jatropha Plantation Project. The enquiry by the flying squad revealed several discrepancies with respect to the execution of the project.
8. Having pursued the document on record and the submission of the learned counsel for the parties at bar, the following issues are framed by this Court:-
a. Whether the writ petition is maintainable?
b. Whether the entire proceedings as against the petitioner stand vitiated on the ground of being conducted with a premeditated mindset?
9. The issue with respect to maintainability is taken up first. The Ld. Counsel for the State has vehemently urged the Court to consider that the Petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal prior to filing the writ petition. Since the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appeal, the writ petition was not maintainable. The same has been rebutted by the petitioner by stating that as the petitioner has assailed the proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner falls in the exception as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks reported in (1998 (8) SCC 1).
10. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction. The discretion of this Court is, however, subject to self-imposed limitation and the law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in a plethora of judgements. There is no doubt that the presence of an efficacious and alternative remedy would raise an issue with respect to the entertainability of the writ petition. However, determination of whether a petition is entertainable or not depends upon the issues of law raised by the petitioner. In the case at hand, the petitioner has assailed the entire departmental proceedings primarily on the ground that the same stands vitiated, as the same was conducted with a premeditated mind and the issuance of notices was done only as a formality. The dispute, therefore, raised by the petitioner, essentially pertains to the violation of principles of natural justice. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33, has settled the entertainability of the writ petition, in such case. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:-
9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262] , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686].) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice.
11. Considering the settled position of law that the violation of natural justice makes a writ petition entertainable, I find the instant writ to be entertainable.
12. Coming to the next issue, the learned counsel representing the petitioner has contended that the entire proceedings stand vitiated, as it was conducted with a predetermined mind. The same would be apparent from the fact that the second showcause notice (which admittedly didnt contain the proposed punishment) was issued to the petitioner on 4.8.2012. However, the note-sheet drawn on 18.7.2012 reflects that even prior to the issuance of the second showcause notice, the fate of the petitioner was sealed as the punishment of the petitioner was already determined.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent has rebutted this by stating that it was only the proposed punishment and no decision in this respect was taken. Further, even if it is assumed that punishment was determined, the issuance of showcause thereafter cures the said infirmity. In case the petitioner would have given an acceptable answer, the said punishment could have been reduced or altered.
14. In order to determine this issue, this Court feels it is necessary to reproduce the necessary noting made in the notesheet on 18.7.2012.
चार वेतन वृद्धि संचयात्मक प्रभाव से रोकने व निन्दन का दंड दिया जाय।
15. The noting made on 18.7.2012 does not contain anything to suggest that the same was only the proposed punishment; on the contrary the words show that the punishment which was to be given to the petitioner was already determined. This is further supplemented by the admitted fact that the second showcause notice did not contain the proposed punishment but rather remained completely silent on this aspect.
16. The Honble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, explained the importance of ensuring fairness in any quasi-judicial proceedings. The relevant paragraph of the judgement are reproduced as under:-
27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony.
28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against.
17. In the case at hand, the determination of the punishment prior to the issuance of the second show cause shows that the proceedings against the petitioner were conducted with a predetermined mind. The noting of 18.7.2012 reveals that the outcome of the proceedings was sealed even before the issuance of the second show cause notice to the petitioner and as such the entire subsequent proceedings thereof were a mere eyewash. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC 42, while dismissing the special leave petition, held that when the vice-chancellor had made up his mind to punish the employee, subsequent notices by the executive committee were only an empty formality. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
32. It is not disputed that ex post facto permission could also have been granted. Moreover, the said office memo does not in any way deal with the respondent's contention that he should have been granted leave. Why the respondent's application for grant of leave had not been favourably considered by the Vice-Chancellor, is not known. The Vice-Chancellor clearly framed an opinion that the respondent has not obeyed his directions and he had not seriously taken note of his order. The notice, thus, speaks of a misconduct.
33. It is furthermore evident that the Vice-Chancellor in his notice clearly demonstrated that he had made up his mind. He apparently had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent had committed misconduct and thus, it has to be informed that his notice was issued by way of mere formality.
48. The Vice-Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. A post-decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case.
18. The facts of the case show and make it apparent that the decision to impose punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative event and censure was already determined, even prior to the issuance of the second show cause notice. Subsequent notices wouldnt yield any fruitful result to cure the inherent defect in the proceeding. In light of the settled position of law as discussed above and the applicable facts, the entire disciplinary proceeding is hereby quashed.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.
