Ashish Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15578 of 2015 ====================================================== Ashish Kumar, Son of Mahendra Prasad, resident of Railway Quarter No.898 A, Neora Colony, Khagaul, Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur.

2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur.

4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur.

5. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur.

6. The Divisional Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur.

7. The Assistant Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur.

8. Shri Bijay Krishan Roy, the Enquiry Officer, posted as the Assistant Enquiry Officer (Vigilance), G.M. Vigilance Office, Hajipur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha & Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) 16-05-2016 The order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A.No. 486 of 2010, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner claimed that the enquiry officer Shri Bijay Krishan Roy is biased towards him; therefore, he should be changed. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application after

Patna High Court CWJC No.15578 of 2015 (2) dt.16-05-2016 2/2 observing that the enquiry proceedings are virtually over. However, the enquiry officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the document dated 08.01.2008 before concluding the enquiry by way of a final order. Such order was passed three years back. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the enquiry has not yet been concluded.

We find that allegation of bias levelled against the enquiry officer are vague and general in nature. Such kind of allegation can be levelled against any enquiry officer. We do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court in the present writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) mrl U