Surya Bansh Pal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5949 of 2019 ====================================================== Surya Bansh Pal, Son of Motilal @ Motilal Pal Resident of Village-Darihat, P.S.-Darihat, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The District Magistrate, Rohtas.
4.
The Deputy Development Commissioner, District-Rohtas. 5.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas. 6.
The Block Development Officer, Akodhi Gola, District-Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pramod Mishra, Adv Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Sriram Krishna (AC to SC-11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 30-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2019 annexed as Annexure-13 issued under the signature of Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) as well as order dated 25.04.2017 annexed as Annexure-10 issued by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (respondent no.3) by which the services of the petitioner as Gramin Awas Sahayak was terminated and affirmed.
2/6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the said order dated 25.04.2017, the petitioner was terminated without considering the defence of the petitioner properly. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Gramin Awas Sahayak in Akodhi Gola Anchal, DistrictRohtas (Bihar) on contractual basis under the scheme of Indira Awas on 01.12.2014. Counsel further submits that on the basis of the said advertisement, he was started working after selection vide letter no.741 dated 25.02.2014 annexed as Annexure-2. Counsel submits that the petitioner joined on the said post and started discharging duty of Indira Awas Sahayak in Akodhi Gola Block on the payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Memo No. 484 dated 05.03.2016 annexed as Annexure-6, he was dismissed from the service on the basis of complaint followed by explanation filed by him. The petitioner filed representation against his dismissal that violation of natural justice has been made and thereafter, a criminal case was also filed against him bearing Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 36/2016 dated 20.02.2016 annexed as Annexure-8. Counsel further submits that against his order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred appeal and subsequently, preferred writ petition in which vide order dated 05.03.2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8210
3/6 of 2016, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority and his matter was remitted back. The Secretary Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna in the light of the observations passed in writ petition has passed final order in which he confirmed the earlier order of dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Gramin Awas Sahayak vide order dated 25.04.2017. Counsel also submits that after the said order passed on 08.01.2019 which is under challenge, the order of acquittal dated 17.02.2020 has been passed in the criminal case which is annexed as Annexure15.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the punishment order may be directed to be reviewed as in the said criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted. In support of his argument, counsel relied on a judgment of Mukti Nath Rai Vs. The Punjab National Bank through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Ors. reported in 2023(1) PLJR 824. Counsel relied on the observations made in paragraph no.7 of the said judgment that:- "under what circumstances acquittal in a criminal case is bearing in a departmental proceedings."
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
4/6 submits that the petitioner is a contractual employee and not a regular employee whereas, the said case on which the petitioner is relying is basically a case of regular employee and case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the said case.
7. In the light of the submissions made, it transpires to this Court that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Hon'ble Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8210 of 2016 challenging the termination order of the petitioner issued vide Memo No. 484 dated 05.03.2016 before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, namely, Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna has set aside the order vide order dated 02.08.2016 and after allowing the same, the matter was remanded back. After remand, the District Magistrate, Rohtas in Case No. 3/2016 vide order dated 25.04.2017 has reiterated the earlier order dated 05.03.2016, thereby the petitioner having been terminated from discharging the duty of Indira Awas Assistant and which has been challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.
8. This Hon'ble Court has directed the Appellate Authority to examine the case of the petitioner and decide the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. It has also been observed that the Court is not
5/6 giving any opinion on the merit of the case. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.01.2019 passed a reasoned and speaking order. In the said reasoned and speaking order, it has been passed that:- "
कागजातोकेअवलोकनएवंदोनोपकोको सुननेसेसपषटहोताहैककइंकदराआवासयोजनाके अनतगरतलाभदेनेहेतुJh सूयरवंशपालदारालाभुक अंजुदेवीसे1500/- र०कलयागया, कजसकीजानकारी iz kklu "
कोizkIr होनेपरदूसरेकदनJh पालनेवापसकर कदया।इंकदराआवासयोजनाअनतगरतलाभदेनेकेकलए लाभुकसेपैसेकालेनदेनलोकसेवककेआचरणके कवपरीतहै।अनुबंधरदकरनेसंबंधीआदेशकदनांक 25.07.2017 केअवलोकनसेयहभीसपषटहोताहैकक कजलापदाकधकारी, रोहतास(सासाराम) दाराआरोकपत Jh पालकोअपनापकरखनेहेतुअवसरदेतेहुएiz[kaM कवकासपदाकधकारी, अकोढीगोलाकीअनुशंसातथा उपकवकासआयुकत, रोहताससेizkIr मंतवयकेआलोक मेसुनवाईकेपशचातयुककतयुकतआदेशपाकरतककया गयाहै। अतःउपरोकततथयोके आलोकमे Jh सूयरवंशपालकायहअपीलआवेदनअसवीकृतककया जाताहै। इसआदेशकीizfr सभीसंबंकधतोकोभेजी जाए।"
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is true that after passing the said order, the order of
6/6 acquittal dated 17.02.2020 has been passed in which the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge made in the FIR.
10. It transpires from the judgment of Mukti Nath Rai Vs. The Punjab National Bank through its Chairmancum-Managing Director & Ors. reported in 2023(1) PLJR 824, that the said judgment shall not help the petitioner due to the reason that for the same charge, different delinquents have been punished differently. It was the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench firstly and then on the ground mentioned in paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Court has dismissed, this case.
11. It transpires to this Court clearly that the petitioner is not the regular employee rather, he is a contractual employee and the principles of regular employee cannot applied in case of the contractual employee.
12. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no case of the petitioner and hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Divyansh/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 02/02/2024 Transmission Date