← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/2542/2017disposed

Prem Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-09-25Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2542 of 2017 ====================================================== Prem Kumar son of Late Babu Bhagwan Prasad, Resident of Village- Paiga, Police Station- Bheddi, District- Saran (Chapra). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General, Prison Reform Services, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Joint Secretary-cum-Director (Administration), Government of Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Parth Sarthi- GA4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is facing departmental proceeding arising out of Vigilance Trap Case No. 73 of 2006 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 102 of 2006.

Earlier the petitioner was put to departmental proceeding with respect to a trap case corresponding to Vigilance Trap Case No. 73 of 2006. The departmental proceeding with respect to trap case concluded with acquittal of the petitioner and, during that period, the departmental proceeding related to D.A. matter was kept in abeyance. After the success of the petitioner in the trap

2/4 case, the present departmental proceeding has been opened and the petitioner has been directed to participate in the departmental proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal case and the departmental proceeding are identical and if the petitioner will be compelled to participate in the proceeding will also be compelled to disclose his defence before the Enquiry Officer and that will help the prosecution to fill up the lacuna and will ultimately create prejudice to the petitioner. This Court, vide order dated 2.8.2018, had directed the State as with regard to stage of the prosecution case pending before the Special Court. A second counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein it has been stated that the prosecution has given list of 11 prosecution witnesses and, out of that, the prosecution has examined one witness but, that witness has partly been cross-examined by the defence that too on 21.6.

2017, whereafter, no progress has been shown in the present affidavit. It is high time that this is the case of the year 2006 and 12 years have already completed. One witness has been examined till date to prove the charge against the petitioner which shows shocking state of affairs. During the pendency of the special case, the departmental proceeding with respect to D.A.

3/4 initiated. The criminal case with respect to D.A. matter is still pending before criminal court. Only one witness, in half, has been examined and it appears that neither party is interested to conclude the trial and, in one way or the other, the trial is being protracted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on each and every day, he has appeared, there is no fault on his part but, it is the prosecution which is not bringing the witness.

In that view of the matter, this Court directs the Special Judge to conclude the trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order and, equally, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, is also directed to ensure presentation of the prosecution witness and further it is directed that on the day of appearance of the witness, his examination and cross-examination should be completed. The Court will not accede the prayer for adjournment on the plea of cross-examination. If the examination is not concluded, it will continue on the next date and the trial should be concluded on day-to-day basis. After the completion of the trial, the Presiding Officer will submit a report to this Court for perusal and, till pendency of the D.P.

4/4 prosecution will be at liberty to proceed further in the departmental proceeding.

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.09.2018 Transmission Date