Vijay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21982 of 2018 Vijay Kumar Singh Son of Satrughan Prasad Singh, Resident of VillageNarharpur, Sarda Rai Ka Tola, PO-Narharpur District-Saran. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chhapra The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Saran at Chhapra. null null Headmaster, Government Basic School, Gausia, Gopalganj. with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22059 of 2018 Onkar Prasad Singh S/o Ram Chandra Singh R/o village and PO-Amar Chhapra, District Saran The District Education officer, Saran at Chapra The District Programme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chapra Headmaster, Government Basic School, Hansapir Saran with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22104 of 2018 Sudhir Kumar Singh Son of Narendra Kishore Resident of VillageSaraiya,P.s. Baniyapur,Distt.-Saran The District Education Officer,Saran at Chhara The District Programme Officer Establishment ,Saran at Chhapra Headmaster,Govt. of Basic Schol,Tengarahi,Gopalganj with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22126 of 2018
2/5 Upendra Kumar Ray Son of Sita Ram Rai, resident of Village- Tejpurwa, POMushahari PS- Muffasil District- Saran. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chhapra. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chhapra. Headmaster, Government Basic School, Karcholia, Saran. null null with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22160 of 2018 Md. Manir Son of Late Sheikh Abdul Rauf, Resident of Village- Naibagh, Near Masjid, P.O.- Bhagwan Bajar, District- Saran. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chapra. Headmaster, Government Basic School, Ferusa Saran. with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22277 of 2018 Anand Kumar S/o Mangal Singh, R/o Village and PO-Amar Chhapra, District-Saran.
The District education Officer, Saran at Chhapra The District Proframme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chhapra. Headmaster, Government Basic School, Ferusa, Saran. with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22627 of 2018 Raj Kishore Singh Son of Rameshwar Singh, resident of Village and P.O.- Narharpur, District- Saran.
3/5 The District Education Officer, Saran at Chhapra. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chhapra. Headmaster, Government Basic School, Balua, Saran. Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21982 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bajarangi Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw, GP XXIII (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22059 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bajarangi Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sushil Kumar -Gp22 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22104 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bajarangi Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Jitendra Kr. Roy 1- Sc13 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22126 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bajarangi Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Madhaw Pd. Yadaw- Gp23 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22160 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bajarangi Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Kameshwar Kumar- Gp17 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22277 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bajarangi Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Smt. Shilpa Singh- Ga12 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22627 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bajarangi Lal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Madanjeet Kumar- Gp20 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 14-11-2022 The Counsel for the State Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, SC XVI, is not present therefore Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw, GP XXIII, is asked to assist the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in all the aforesaid writ petitions the petitioners approached this Court on account of inaction on the part of the State Government in not deciding their appeals against the order of
4/5 punishment passed under the CCA Rules 2005. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are obliged to decide appeals within a specific period under the Rules and the delay on their part has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners, while they have been dismissed from service wrongfully, this Court should take-up the matter and decide the matter itself against the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a time period may be fixed for deciding the appeals. Keeping in view the statutory provision of appeal provided under the Rules of 2005, this Court deems it proper to direct the appropriate authority to decide the appeals, if not so decided, within a period of two months henceforth. It is made clear that the petitioners would be free to file an additional submissions of appeal, if the original appeal is not available with the respondents.
Such additional submissions may be filed within a period of 15 days from today.
The petitioners will be given an opportunity of hearing, if so demanded for deciding the appeal by the appellate authority.
It is always expected that the appeal shall be decided
5/5 by a speaking order with cogent reasons so that there may not be further litigation. However, it is always available to the petitioners, if so aggrieved, to challenge the orders before the appropriate forum.
With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Shamshad/- U