Mahesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3391 of 2023 ====================================================== Mahesh Paswan Son of Late Ram Charitra Paswan Resident of VillageChamandih, Police Station- Chakand, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administrative, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Divison, Gaya. 4.

The District Collector, Gaya.

5.

The District Planning Officer, Gaya.

6.

The Dy. Collector (Establishment), Gaya.

7.

The Block Development Officer, Tankuppa.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Virendra Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to AAG- 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, dated 10-06-2020, as contained in Annexure23 to the writ petition, is factually incorrect. The allegation of not placing the file before the Block Development Officer (for brevity 'B.D.O') in terms of order dated 05-05-2014, passed in C.W.J.C No. 22417 of 2013 is incorrect. It is submitted that as soon as the order was received, the petitioner has acted

Patna High Court CWJC No.3391 of 2023(3) dt.01-08-2023 2/3 promptly, and placed the matter before the BDO, who has marked it to someone else.

3.

The contentions raised by the petitioner are substantially raising factual dispute with the finding arrived at in the impugned order of punishment dated 10-06-2020, passed under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules; and the petitioner's version of the sequence of events regarding which charge memo has been issued on 16-01-2017. While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court refrains from entering into the factual disputes. 4.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that in the counter affidavit, they have raised an objection that without availing the remedy of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, the petitioner has directly come to this Court.

5.

Such objection having been raised by the State in its counter affidavit, this Court would observe that the factual dispute can be appreciated by filing an appeal. If the petitioner approaches the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Divison, Gaya (respondent No. 3) by filing an appeal within four (4) weeks, the respondent No. 3 would be obliged to consider the petitioner's case on merits without raising the issue of the same

Patna High Court CWJC No.3391 of 2023(3) dt.01-08-2023 3/3 being filed by any delay.

6.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Raj kishore/- U