Ram Pravesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1060 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4860 of 2015 ====================================================== Ram Pravesh Singh, Son of Mahavir Singh, Resident of Village- Divaka P.S. Dumariya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner-Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3.
The D.M. Cum-Collector, Gaya.
4.
The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gaya.
5.
The Sub- Divisional Officer, Neem Chak Bathani, P.S. Neem Chak, Bathani District- Gaya.
6.
The B.D.O. Khizer Sarai P.S. Khizer Sarai Distt. Gaya. 7.
The B.D.O. Gurua Gaya District- Gaya.
... ... Respondents- Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Partha Sarthi- GA 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-09-2017 The petitioner was suspended and during the period of suspension, a charge-sheet was issued to him and based on the enquiry conducted punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him on 30th April, 2011. He challenged the said imposition of punishment after his appeal was dismissed in the year 2015 and the learned Writ Court on 31.03.2015 dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:-
Patna High Court LPA No.1060 of 2015 dt.20-09-2017 2/3 "Writ application is dismissed.
2. No relief is required to be granted as the punishment order has lost its meaning now, which was passed way back in the year 2011 which was withholding one increment without cumulative effect.
3. There was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to assail such decision in appeal, which has been rightly rejected even by the appellate authority. This order too does not warrant interference." Even though, the learned Writ Court may be right in holding that the effect of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect imposed in the year 2011 has lost of its significance and now there is no substantial loss to the petitioner, but while doing so, the learned Writ Court completely lost sight of the fact that before imposing aforesaid punishment, the petitioner was kept under suspension from 02.06.2008 up to the date of imposition of punishment, i.e. 30th April, 2011.
Patna High Court LPA No.1060 of 2015 dt.20-09-2017 3/3 Vs. The Chairman Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors., [ 2003(4) PLJR 68] was not taken note of.
That being so, to that effect, i.e. with regard to confirming for the period of suspension between 02.06.2008 to 30th April, 2011, requirement of law of issuing notice to the petitioner and granting him an opportunity has not been granted.
Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part, quash the order confirming the period of suspension and treating to be a suspension without payment of full salary and grant opportunity to the State Government, if so advised, to take action in accordance to the provision of Section 97(2) and 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code.
The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Sunil/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.09.2017 Transmission Date