Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1068 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Aditya Prasad Singh

2001-11-29

NAGENDRA RAI, R.S.GARG

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No body appears on behalf of the respondent inspite of valid service of notice. 2. This appeal is barred by limitation. 3. Having heard the counsel for the appellants on the point of limitation and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petition, we are of the view that sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 4. The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 9.9.1999 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No, 1182 of 1998 by which he has set aside part of the order, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application, by which while reinstating the respondent in the service, the State Government has issued a direction for withholding one increment and non-entitlement of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of his joining, and directed for payment of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of joining. 5. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are like this. The respondent was in police service. He was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated and ultimately, he was dismissed from service on 31.10.1991. The order of dismissal was upheld in appeal and even in the memorial filed by the respondent. However, the respondent filed representation before the State Government and the matter was considered and impugned order was passed by which order of dismissal of the respondent was set aside and aforesaid punishment was imposed. 6. Learned single Judge has set aside the aforesaid order on the ground that while imposing the said punishment, no opportunity of hearing was.given to the writ petitioner-respondent. 7. In our view, in the instant case the opportunity of hearing was not required to be given to the writ petitioner-respondent. The memorial against the order of dismissal was set aside. There is no provision authorising the State Government to set aside the said order. However, as the order of reinstatement by the State Government was not challenged, we are not expressing any final opinion but the fact remains that the order of dismissal had attained its finality as it was upheld in appeal as also in memorial. However, the State Government on sympathetic consideration has reconsidered the matter and set aside the order of dismissal and has imposed minor punishment. However, the State Government on sympathetic consideration has reconsidered the matter and set aside the order of dismissal and has imposed minor punishment. If the superior authority imposes higher punishment, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the delinquent but in case while hearing the matter minor punishment is awarded, show cause notice is not required in law to be served on the delinquent. From perusal of the materials on record, we can only say that leniency and sympathy was shown by the State Government when the order of dismissal had attained its finality. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the State Government imposing minor punishment cannot be faulted on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the order, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition is restored.