The State Of Bihar vs Phulpari Kumari

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. .... Appellant(s) Versus

PHULPARI KUMARI …. Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The State of Bihar has filed the above Appeal

questioning the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at

Patna by which the order of dismissal of the Respondent

dated 10.12.2014 was set aside.

2. The Respondent was appointed as a Child

Development Officer on 29.06.2011. Sh. Jitendra Rajak filed

a complaint against the Respondent to the Vigilance Bureau

of Investigation, Patna alleging demand of illegal

gratification. The Vigilance Bureau conducted a raid and

the Respondent was caught red-handed while accepting an

1 amount of Rs.40,000/-. A First Information Report (FIR) was

registered against the Respondent on 17.08.2013.

Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were commenced

against the Respondent on 12.11.2013 and she was placed

under suspension. An inquiry was held in which the

following charges were framed:

First Charge:

“You demanded the gratification amount

for the selection/appointment letter to the

selected candidate after the selection of the

general meeting on the vacant post of

Anganwari Sevika in Anganwari Centre No.

27 (Ward No.03 Panchayat Mahuli) of the Child

Development Project, Patna Rural Patna.”

Second Charge:

Irregular operation of Anganwari Centers

and the Centre found to be closed.

The Agnagnwari Centre was found to be

closed in the preschool education at Anganwari

Centre No. 63 of the Child Development Project,

Patna Sadar – 1 on 13.10.2011. Anganwari

2 | Page Centre was running in the house made of

straws. Sevika came late. Sevika told that she

had taken leave on that day from the woman

Supervisor, which information came to be

wrong. The Helper was found to be absent.

Kitchen was found to be closed since

02.10.2011. Maternity beneficiary informed that

she gets 04 kg rice and 01 kg pulse on THR day.

The operation of the Centre was found to be

unsatisfactory.

Third Charge

As mentioned in the supplementary form

attached to the Resolution No.1218 dated

04.03.2014 about registering FIR by vigilance PS

case No.49//.

3. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are that a general

meeting was convened on 24.06.2013 to decide the

vacancies for the position of Child Development Officer

(Sevika) in Anganwari Centre No.27 (Ward No.03 Panchayat

Mahuli) of the Child Development Project, Patna. A

resolution was passed to select Smt. Suman Kumar, the wife

3 | Page of the complainant. The Respondent was also present in the

general meeting. Smt. Suman obtained 62.4 per cent

marks. As per the complaint, the Respondent demanded a

sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the appointment of the

complainant’s wife, Smt. Suman Kumar. The amount was

then reduced to Rs.50,000/-. The complainant approached

the Vigilance Bureau and a raid was conducted on

17.08.2013 by laying a trap. As per the directions of the

Vigilance authorities, the complainant approached the

Respondent who was standing in the verandah of her house.

The Respondent received the money and put the amount on

the chair and began to shut the grill of her house, when she

saw other persons of the raiding party. The fingers of both

the hands of the Respondent were washed in sodium

carbonate solution and the color of the solution turned pink.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that there is sufficient

evidence to hold that the Respondent is guilty of the first

charge framed against her. The charge of demanding and

accepting illegal gratification was proved against her. The

other charges were also needed to be proved.

4 | Page

4. The Respondent was dismissed from service by an

order dated 10.12.2014. She challenged the order of

dismissal by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court, which

was allowed by a judgment dated 12.12.2017. A learned

Single Judge of the High Court disbelieved the version of the

complainant as neither the complainant nor his wife were

examined in the disciplinary proceedings. The learned

Single Judge concluded that the charge of demand and

acceptance of the illegal gratification by the Respondent

was not proved.

5. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the

judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition and

dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant. The Division

Bench proceeded to examine the evidence and held that the

charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification

was not proved. The submission of the Respondent that she

was falsely implicated in a trap case was accepted by the

Division Bench.

6. The criminal trial against the Respondent is still

pending consideration by a competent criminal Court. The

5 | Page order of dismissal from service of the Respondent was

pursuant to a departmental inquiry held against her. The

Inquiry Officer examined the evidence and concluded that

the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification

by the Respondent was proved. The learned Single Judge

and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error

in reappreciating the evidence and coming to a conclusion

that the evidence on record was not sufficient to point to the

guilt of the Respondent. It is settled law that interference

with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry

can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence

is not within the realm of judicial review. The standard of

proof as required in a criminal trial is not the same in a

departmental inquiry. Strict rules of evidence are to be

followed by the criminal Court where the guilt of the

accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On

the other hand, preponderance of probabilities is the test

adopted in finding the delinquent guilty of the charge. The

High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of

dismissal of the Respondent by re-examining the evidence

and taking a view different from that of the disciplinary

6 | Page authority which was based on the findings of the Inquiry

Officer.

7. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is

set aside and the order of dismissal of the Respondent is

upheld. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

..…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..….............................J [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, December 06, 2019.

7 | Page