Ranjit Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1819 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3329 of 2022 ====================================================== Ranjit Paswan S/o Late Bangali Paswan Resident of Village- Dekpura, P.S.- Rahaui, District-Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Sri Amir Subhani, Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Sri Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Sri Shashank Subhankar, Collector, Nalanda.

4.

Sri Rajan Kumar, The Deputy Collector of Land Reform, Hilsa, Nalanda. 5.

Sri Anuj Kumar, The Circle Officer, Ishlampur, District- Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to learned AAG-12 for the State. A supplementary showcause has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that after thorough departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty for the charges framed against him in प्रपत्र 'क' and accordingly in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been punished.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order of this Court, the disciplinary authority instead of proceeding with the first inquiry report decided to conduct a

Patna High Court MJC No.1819 of 2023(6) dt.20-07-2024 2/2 fresh inquiry and this time an inquiry report was submitted against the petitioner, on the basis of the said inqury report, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Some issues have been raised saying that the whole inquiry was again conducted with a malafide intention as the person who had approved the charge memo was made Inquiry Officer.

3. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into in the contempt application. Since the final order of punishment has already been passed, this Court finds no reason to proceed with the contempt application. It is being disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy as may be advised to him against the order of punishment in appropriate jurisdiction.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rishi/- U