Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 275 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Bishan Singh Jayat

2001-03-26

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. The State of Bihar has filed the present petition impugning the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.3.1999. 2. The respondent Bishan Singh Jayat belongs to the Indian Police Service assigned to the Bihar Cadre. He filed an Original Application No. 641 of 1997 : Bishan Singh Jayat, IPS V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna. The prayer before the Tribunal was that the departmental promotion Committees proceedings held on 1 July 1997 by which a sealed cover process was adopted be quashed and the promotion not be denied to the respondent to the rank of Inspector General of Police. 3. The Tribunal gave certain directions in deciding the case of the respondent. The directions were based on a decision of the Supreme Court in re: Union of India and Ors. V/s. K. V. Jankiraman and others [ (1991)4 SCC 109 )]. The directions given by the Tribunal were the following: (i) to open the sealed cover; (ii) consider the case of the applicant in the light of the Supreme Court decision; (iii) pass a reasoned order on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with law; and (iv) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. 4. Having noticed the submissions of the officer and the State of Bihar the Tribunal based its decision basically on the ground that at the time when the Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 1 July, 1997 the charge sheet had not been submitted. The observation of the Tribunal just before the concluding paragraph of the judgment is contained in paragraph 15. The Tribunal observed: "This submission of charge sheet is later than the meeting of the DPC on 1.7.1997. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant was not placed under suspension in the disciplinary/criminal case." 5. The reason why the Tribunal based its decision on an aspect that the applicant had not been suspended is clearly borne out from the observation of the Supreme Courts Judgment in paragraph 16. The relevant portion of the Supreme Courts Judgment is reproduced: "As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. The relevant portion of the Supreme Courts Judgment is reproduced: "As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge memo/charge sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalize the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure......" 6. Then the Supreme Court in paragraph 17 observed: "To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge memo/charge sheet has already been issued to the employee". 7. In the circumstances, in so far as the present case is concerned, the Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 1 July, 1997, the charge sheet was submitted on 29 August, 1997. Clearly, it was after the Departmental Promotion Committee. 8. The Supreme Court decision gave guidelines, to the effect, that in such a situation if the incumbent concerned is not to be given a promotion then the recourse is that the administration must suspend the person who is under an inquiry and that by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. 9. Repeatedly, the Court inquired from learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar that the situation was in the hands of the administration that if all these complications were to be avoided and regard being had to the circumstances on whatever the record be, nothing stopped the State of Bihar from passing an order of suspension which as of date has not been resorted to. 10. The balance which remains is that the Court is being persuaded to take another view than taken by the Tribunal. The fact that the High Court may take another view is not the relevant aspect. What is relevant is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is incorrect. It is not. It is based on a Supreme Court decision. 11. The balance which remains is that the Court is being persuaded to take another view than taken by the Tribunal. The fact that the High Court may take another view is not the relevant aspect. What is relevant is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is incorrect. It is not. It is based on a Supreme Court decision. 11. In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to issue a writ on the petition of the State of Bihar as the High Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal is well reasoned and is not amenable to a writ of certiorari. 12. appeal is Dismissed.