The State Of Bihar And ORS v. S.M.Abu Hamid

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1263 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6131 of 2010 ===========================================================

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Patna

4. The Additional District Magistrate ( Election ), Patna

5. The Additional District Magistrate ( General ), Patna

6. The Sub - Divisional Police Officer, Paliganj, Patna .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. S.M.Abu Hamid Son of Syed Mohammad resident of Fashebad Ka Maidan P.S. Chauk, District - Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 10-04-2015 This appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.6131 of 2010. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging the order of punishment dated 22.11.2007. It was alleged that on account of negligence on the part of respondent a fire incident had occurred at a place where ballot papers for Paliganj Assembly Constituency was stored. Respondent submitted explanation denying the charges. Similar charges were framed against two more persons. Almost against all the three

Patna High Court LPA No.1263 of 2014 dt.10-04-2015 employees, similar orders of punishment denying further increments were passed.

The learned Single Judge found that not a single witness was examined during the departmental proceeding and charges were found to be true. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

It may be true that the matter ought to have been remanded back for resumption of the departmental proceedings, if it is established that no witness was examined during the course of departmental enquiry. However, occasion to remand the matter at this stage is obviated on account of the fact that all the benefits were extended to the respondent. There is no point in reopening the matter.

The appeal is dismissed.

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ) (Shivaji Pandey, J) Jay/-Vinay/ U