Dipu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9959 of 2020 ====================================================== Dipu Kumar S/o Baijnath Mandal, Resident of Village - Mathurapur, P.O. Kabirchak, P.S. - Sadar (Darbhanga), District - Darbhanga PIN- 846009. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Director General of Police-cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.
The D.I.G. of Police, Patna.
4.
The Senior S.P. Of Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjit Jha For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-07-2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. After qualifying in the process of selection for appointment as a constable, petitioner's selection has been cancelled for the reason that he had gained selection by illegal means. The basis for such finding is to be found in the report of the Officer on Special Duty Central Selection Board of Constables dated 10.10.2015 (Annexure- 4). This Court would consider it useful to reproduce relevant extract of the report which reads as follows:- "इस संबसंध म गहरराई से पूछतराछ करनसे पर उक्त ततीननों अभ्यररयनों दराररा रलिरखित रूप से यह स्वतीकरार ककयरा गयरा कक रसपराहती भतर्ती 2014 कक रलिरखित परतीकरा म इन ततीननों स्ररान पर ततीन अन्य लिड़करा बैठरा ररा जज
2/7 परतीकरा म सफलितरा कदिलिरायरा हबै। उक्त ततीननों अभ्यरर्ती करा स्वतीकरारजकक्त बयरान क्रमवरार कनम्न हबै:- . . . . . . .
. . . . .अभ्यरर्ती दितीपू ककमरार, रजलि नसं० 1028170228 दराररा रलिरखित रूप से स्वतीकरार ककयरा गयरा कक रसपराहती भतर्ती 2014 कक रलिरखित परतीकरा म इनकसे स्ररान पर दिपूसररा लिड़करा सकनतीलि ककमरार, स्टसेशन रजड, दिरभसंगरा 50,000/- (पचरास हजरार) रुपयसे लिसेकर परतीकरा म बैठकर इन्हम सफलितरा कदिलिरायरा हबै। सराक्ष्य स्वरूप इनकरा रलिरखित स्वतीकरारजकक्त आवसेदिन संलग्न हबै। . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . इस प्रकरार उक्त ततीननों अभ्यररयनों एवसं इनकसे सहयजकगयनों कसे कवरुद्ध रसपराहती भतर्ती कक रलिरखित परतीकरा म फजर्तीवराड़रा कर सफलितरा प्रराप्त करनसे करा आरजप बनतरा हबै। अततः इस संबसंध म कनदिसेशरानकसरार कहनरा हबै कक उक्त ततीननों अभ्यररयनों एवसं इनकसे सहयजकगयनों कसे कवरुद्ध रसपराहती भतर्ती कक रलिरखित परतीकरा म फजर्तीवराड़रा कर सफलितरा प्रराप्त करनसे कसे आरजप म अपनसे स्तर से अलिग से प्ररारकमकक दिजर करवरातसे हए उसकक एक प्रकत इस करायरारलिय कज उपलिब्ध करवरानसे कक ककपरा कक जराय तराकक इन ततीननों करा चयन रद्द ककयरा जरा सकसे। उक्त ततीननों अभ्यररयनों कसे जराजाँच से संबसंरधत सभती मपूलि अकभलिसेखि प्ररा०अ०कन० रराघव रसंह कज अग्रतर करारवराई हसेतक वरापस ककयरा गयरा। अनुलग्नकक- यरजपरर"
3. Criminal case (Dudhiya P.S. Case No. 260/2015) has also been lodged against the petitioner.
3/7
4. It is under this circumstance, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 2345/2018. The same was disposed of on 29.08.2018 (Annexure- 7), according to the following order.
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact of the present case is exactly similar to the fact of C.W.J.C. No.16102 of 2016 (Ranjit Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) disposed of on 04.02.2017 and, as such, the present petitioner should also be granted the identical relief as has been given to Ranjit Kumar.
Let the authority concerned should examine the case of the present petitioner and the case of Ranjit Kumar (supra) and if it is found that both the cases are exactly identical, in that circumstance only, the same relief will be granted to the present petitioner.
It is further directed to the authority concerned to conclude the departmental enquiry expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
It is also made clear that if the petitioner would not cooperate in the early disposal of the departmental
4/7 enquiry, the Enquiry Officer will be at liberty to conduct the enquiry ex-parte and take a decision in accordance with law.
With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of."
5. Instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- I. For Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, and direction to set aside the impugned termination order of petitioner, Zilladesh No. 491/2016, dated 18.01.2016 which has been communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 3021/र0 कक0 Patna dated 02.03.2020, (Annex.12) passed by the S.S.P. Patna without follow the Police Manuals Rules and Natural Justice. II. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order/orders, direction/directions in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concern respondents to set aside the punishment awarded to the petitioner in Annexure-12 and reinstate the petitioner on his own post with all back wages and consequential benefits in light of Hon'ble Court order dated 03.01.2017 and 16.01.2020 of CWJC No. 18337 of 2016 and CWJC No. 846/2020
5/7 respectively in very much similar matter (Annexure-9 & 10).
III. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order/orders, direction/directions to the concern respondent authorities to pay the arrears of salary for the entire dismissal, suspension and custody period as well as the working periods to the petitioner, i.e. date of joining of petitioner, to still today and due arrears of salary from the date of joining till the date of custody i.e. 23.06.2015 to 11.10.2015.
IV. For further issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned respondent not to humiliate or harass the petitioner on account of the illegal and baseless, concocted and fabricated F.I.R No. 260/2015 dated 11.10.2015 of Budha Colony Police Station (Patna)."
6. The petitioner's counsel submits that there was specific direction in CWJC No. 2345 of 2018 earlier filed by petitioner to examine the case of the petitioner and if it was found to be similar to the case of Ranjit Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 16102 of 2016), then the relief was to
6/7 be granted to the petitioner as has been granted to Ranjit Kumar, and to proceed as per decision in the case of Ranjit Kumar (supra). The same, however, has not been done.
7. The petitioner's counsel further submits that this Court should again direct the authorities to consider the petitioner's case in light of the case of Ranjit Kumar (supra) and if it is found, that it is exactly identical, the relief which was granted to Ranjit Kumar should be granted to the petitioner and the authorities should be directed to proceed thereafter, as has earlier been directed in CWJC No. 2345 of 2018.
8. The submission of the petitioner's counsel, to say the least, is thoroughly misconceived. As taken note of above this writ petitioner had approached this Court earlier. This Court has already issued the same directions in CWJC No. 2345 of 2018, which are being prayed for in the instant proceedings. The said decision in CWJC No. 2345 of 2018 has attained finality inter partes, qua this Court.
9. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the noncompliance of the order passed in CWJC No. 2345/2018, the recourse available to him was to ensure compliance of the order passed in the earlier writ proceedings by taking recourse to proceedings in accordance with law.
7/7
10. Even if, the petitioner's submission is true that no action has been taken pursuant to the earlier directions passed by this Court on the petitioner's earlier writ petition, that would not allow the petitioner to approach this Court again for issuance of the same direction. If the Court was to allow second writ petition, what would prevent the same petitioner from making a third writ petition, or more thereafter. Such an approach of filing successive writ petitions seeking the same relief; which has already been granted to the same petitioner in an earlier writ proceedings, cannot be countenanced. Once the order has attained finality inter partes, qua the High Court (this Court), and if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-compliance with the order passed in the earlier proceedings, it was open to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate jurisdiction for enforcement/compliance of the earlier order.
11. The application is thoroughly misconceived and is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.07.2022 Transmission Date NA