Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 904 (PAT)

Devendra Roy v. State Of Bihar

2001-09-21

R.N.PRASAD

body2001
Judgment 1. The petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.6.2001 issued by the Administrator, respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the work of Chief Accounts Officer and asked to supervise the work of entry of tax in tax fixation register which is being made in different offices and further he was asked to hand over charge of the Chief Accounts Officer to respondent no. 6, Annexure-1. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Chief Accounts Officer in Patna Municipal Corporation. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority on submission of enquiry report dropped the proceeding. However, the State Government in exercise of power under Rule 34 of Rules of Appointment etc. of the employees of Patna Municipal Corporation directed the Administrator to send the entire records of the proceeding. Pursuant to the said direction record of the proceeding was sent to the authority of the State Government and after examining the record including enquiry report some of the charges were found to have been established and as such directed to issue second show-cause notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, a second show- cause notice has already been issued, however, no final order has been passed and the order, Annexure-1, has been issued. The petitioner has thus come before this Court for quashing the order, Annexure-1. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it has been stated that the order, Annexure-1, is not by way of punishment nor the order, Annexure-1 can be taken as, in any way, posting of the petitioner on lower post. There is no pecuniary loss to the petitioner rather he has been assigned a very important work and it is in the interest of public. Entrustment of such important work cannot be said to be penal in any way rather it is just and proper in the interest of Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the order, Annexure-1, would amount to posting of the petitioner on the lower post and as such the order, Annexure-1, is bad in law. Entrustment of such important work cannot be said to be penal in any way rather it is just and proper in the interest of Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the order, Annexure-1, would amount to posting of the petitioner on the lower post and as such the order, Annexure-1, is bad in law. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in no way it can be treated as posting of the petitioner in lower rank, rather an important work has been entrusted to the petitioner which is of public interest and is in the interest of the Corporation. 5. From submission and material available on the record it is evident that the petitioner was posted as Chief Accounts Officer. Vide Annexure-1 he has been allotted supervision of work of entry with respect to fixation of tax in different offices. In such a situation, it cannot be said that he has been posted on lower post rather it appears that important work has been entrusted to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit also it has been stated that the petitioner has been deputed to supervise the work of entry of tax in records in National Information Centre which is going on in all the three circles of the Corporation. Such action of the Administrator is purely administrative and not penal. No final order has been passed in the department proceeding. The collection of tax is very important subject of the Corporation and entrustment of such important work to the petitioner cannot be said to be penal in any way and it is in the interest of public and the Corporation. The order, Annexure- 1, cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of P.K. Chinnasamy V/s. Government of Tamil Nadu & others A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 78, wherein case of the petitioner was that he had moved for recognition of his seniority and for grant of service benefit including promotion. The High Court directed for counting his seniority and for considering his claim of promotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner. However, the same was not considered for some time and in the meantime an officer junior to the petitioner was ordered to officiate as Joint Commissioner ignoring the claim of the petitioner and as such the petitioner again approached the court. The High Court directed for counting his seniority and for considering his claim of promotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner. However, the same was not considered for some time and in the meantime an officer junior to the petitioner was ordered to officiate as Joint Commissioner ignoring the claim of the petitioner and as such the petitioner again approached the court. During pendency of the petition before the High Court the petitioner, who was then Deputy Transport Commissioner at Coimbatore had proceeded on casual leave for four days found himself replaced and transferred to Madras, where he was not given posting. However, the High Court refused to interfere. The matter came to the Apex Court and it was held: "It cannot be lost sight of that every public officer is a trustee and in respect of the office he holds and the salary and other benefits which he draws, he is obliged to render appropriate service to the State. The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that he would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the State. If an officer does not behave as required of him under the law he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue as Officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the Consolidated Fund. It is with this view that we had called upon the respondent-Government to give the appellant a proper posting and extract work from him. Since the State Government has not done the needful, it has become necessary for the Court to interfere. Ordinarily in a case of this type, the Court would have no role to play." 6. It is with this view that we had called upon the respondent-Government to give the appellant a proper posting and extract work from him. Since the State Government has not done the needful, it has become necessary for the Court to interfere. Ordinarily in a case of this type, the Court would have no role to play." 6. In the instant case it is evident that there was no claim of the petitioner for promotion nor there is anything on the record to show that petitioner was not posted or not given work rather he has been entrusted important work to supervise the entry of tax in records in the National Information Centre which is going on in three circles of the Corporation vide Annexure-1 and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner has been posted on lower post or that he was not given any work. The work which has been given to the petitioner, in my opinion, cannot be said that it was not commensurate to his status. It has categorically been stated that the order, Annexure-1, is not by way of punishment rather some important work has been given to the petitioner which is in the interest of public and the Corporation. Thus I find that the case relied upon by the petitioner has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.