Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 369 (PAT)

Ojendra Ojha v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-23

AFTAB ALAM

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent authorities and Mr. R.P. Bhagat (G.P. IV) states that he was not given any instructions despite wireless message and reminders sent by him to the concerned authorities. 3. On 13.3.2001 the State was allowed three weeks time for filing counter affidavit. On 4.4.2001, two weeks further time was allowed on a prayer made on behalf of the State. Despite those adjournments, no counter affidavit is filed and the court does not find it possible to grant any further adjournment to the Stale in view of the fact that the petitioner is due to superannuate on 30.4.2001. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of this case on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is a Village Level Worker. He seeks a direction from this court for quashing the disciplinary proceeding which remains pending against him now for over fifteen years. 5. The petitioner was put under suspension on 3.6.85 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges against him. After more than three years a memo of charges, dated 13.7.87 was served on him on 10.6.1988. Before the service of memo of charges, however, his suspension had been revoked on 18.1.1988. 6. According to the petitioner, he was not paid any subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension from 3.6.85 to 18.1.1988. 7. From the memo of charges, a copy whereof is at Annexure 2, it appears that the charges related to unauthorised absence, indiscipline and some misbehaviour with the superior officers. The petitioner asked for copies of certain documents for filing his show cause. According to the statement made in the writ petition, the copies of the documents asked for were not furnished to him and he finally gave his show cause on 20.2.1989. Even after the submission of the show cause, the petitioner made a prayer for being given the copies of certain documents and, according to him, the enquiry officer also directed that the copies of those documents be made available to him. He was, however, not given the desired documents. The departmental enquiry, however, proceeded and on 31.5.89 the enquiry officer submitted his report, a copy where of is at Annexure 4. He was, however, not given the desired documents. The departmental enquiry, however, proceeded and on 31.5.89 the enquiry officer submitted his report, a copy where of is at Annexure 4. From the report, it appears that neither any witness was examined nor any documents were produced on behalf of the department in support of the charges against the petitioner and consequently the enquiry officer found and held that the charges against the petitioner remained unestablished. Though the enquiry report was submitted on 31.5.89, no final order was passed by the disciplinary authority and the matter is allowed to rest at that stage for the past about twelve years. The petitioner makes a grievance that in the meanwhile he was also denied any promotion on the ground of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. 8. From what is stated in the writ petition, which remain unrebutted in the absence of any counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent authorities, it is evident and manifest that the disciplinary proceeding has been allowed to continue against the petitioner in a wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal manner and the action of the disciplinary authorities in not passing a final order, concluding the disciplinary proceeding, verges on malice in law. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that this matter warrants an interference by this court and the disciplinary proceeding cannot be allowed to continue any further. The disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet, dated 13.7.87 (copy at Annexure 2) is accordingly quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits which he may claim by filing a representation before the departmental authorities. In case such a representation is filed, the departmental authorities will examine the petitioners claim in the light of this order, quashing the departmental proceeding pending against him and pass appropriate orders on his claim within two months from the date of filing of the representation. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.