Arvind Kumar Roy v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4598 of 2015 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar Roy son of late Guddar Roy, resident of Village Sirdilpur, P.O. Patory, District Smastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through P.S. Industry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Managing Director, Bihar State Handloom and Handicraft Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Patna-4.

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

For the Petitioner/s : None.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP21- Sanjay Pandey & Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh AC to GP 21.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 25-03-2015 No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondents are present.

On perusal of records this Court find that the writ application is fit to be dismissed both on the ground of delay as also on merits.

Let it be noted that the petitioner was dismissed from service of the Bihar State Handloom and Handicraft Corporation Ltd., way back on 29.04.1989 and this order of punishment dated 29.04.1989 has been sought to be assailed by filing this writ application on 24.03.2015. Thus the delay of almost 26 years would not

Patna High Court CWJC No.4598 of 2015 (2) dt.25-03-2015 only stare on the face of the petitioner but would itself be fatal.

Even on merits this Court finds that the only ground seeking quashing of the order of punishment dated 29.04.1989, is that subsequently the petitioner by judgment of the trial Court in a criminal case dated 12.06.1998, had earned acquittal. The subsequent judgment of the criminal court can never be a ground to question the order of punishment passed in a departmental proceeding. The ambit of departmental proceeding and the scope of criminal case are entirely different and therefore, even on merits this Court will not find any ground for the petitioner to question his order of punishment passed way back in the year 1989. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Ranjan/- U