w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shambhu Prasad Singh v/s Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd.

    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case 12536 Of 1999

    Decided On, 04 October 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD

    For the Appearing Parties: Amanullah, R.N.Mukhopadhyay, Chandra Nawal Kishore, Advocates.



Judgment Text

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 4.11.1999 (Annexure-1), whereby the punishment inflicted on the petitioner earlier by order dated 30.11.1991 has been revived.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present application are that by order as contained in memo dated 30.11.1991 (Annexure-7) the petitioner was visited with the penalty of reversion from the post of Assistant in the selection grade to that of Assistant

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in the basic grade with effect from 1.12.1991. By the said order it was further directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any other allowance other than the subsistence allowance. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWJC No. 1083 of 1992 Shambhu Prasad Singh v. Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited and Ors.), before this Court. By order dated 7.8.1998 this Court quashed the aforesaid order with the following direction :- The case was heard for sometime yesterday. In course of hearing I observed that having regard to the nature of the charge relating to failure of the petitioner to maintain the registers a lesser penalty, such as, censure and/or stoppage of increment with non-cumulative effect could serve the ends of justice, which would have served as a warning to the petitioner to be more careful in future. In the light of the observations made by this Court, Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad discussed the matter with the present Administrator and informed the Court that the Administrator is prepared to reconsider the nature and quantum of punishment. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Administrator dated 30.11.1991 contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. The petitioner may file representation before the Administrator, who shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. There will be no order as to cost.

(3.) Petitioner did not file the representation and hence the respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 7th of August, 1998 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1083 of 1999 on 1.4.1999. This Court by order dated 7.9.1999 recalled the aforesaid order and dismissed the writ application. After the dismissal of the writ application by the impugned order as contained in memo dated 4.11.1999 (Annexure-1) the earlier order of punishment dated 30.11.1991 has been revived.

(4.) It is the stand of the petitioner that after the disposal of the writ application by order dated 7th August 1993 petitioner filed representation dated 22.5.1999 and that representation was considered by the respondents and by order as contained in memo dated 8.9.1999 the order dated 30.11.1991 inflicting the punishment was rescinded and he was visited with the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and further it was directed that petitioner shall not be entitled for any other emoluments other than subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

(5.) The respondents in the counter affidavit have not disputed these basic facts.

(6.) Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhayay, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents Bank having passed the order on the representation of the petitioner varying the penalty later on it ought not to have revived the order dated 30.11.1991.

(7.) Mr. Amanullah, appearing on behalf of the respondents however contends that the writ application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed earlier on 7.8.1998 in CWJC NO. 1083 of 1992 having been recalled, respondents had no option, than to revive the order dated 30.11.1991.

(8.) Having appreciated the rival submission, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been fairly treated. In the writ application filed by him, this Court directed the respondents to pass fresh order in regard to the quantum of punishment after quashing the order by which petitioner was visited with the penalty of reversion. Thereafter in fact respondent Bank chose to pass the order on the representation of the petitioner but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court either by the petitioner or the respondents and accordingly, the order passed by the Court was recalled and the writ petition was dismissed. It seems that neither the Counsel representing the petitioner nor the respondents were informed that petitioner in fact had filed the representation after filing of the application for recall and in fact on such representation punishment has been varied. I am of the opinion that this has led to miscarriage of justice for which petitioner to some extent is also responsible. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 4.11.1991 (Annexure-1) and the result of that would be that punishment inflicted on the petitioner by order dated 8.9.1991 (Annexure-11) shall revive. However, this will not entitle the petitioner arrears of salary but he shall be entitled for the benefits thereof henceforth.

(9.) In the result, the application is allowed order dated 4.11.1991 (Annexure 1) is quashed with the direction aforesaid. No cost
O R