Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 508 (JHR)

Shambhu Kant Dubey v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-04-19

TAPEN SEN

body2002
ORDER Tapan Sen, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the letter dated 19.7.2001 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Executive Officer-cum- Special Officer, Madhupur Municipality) by which the petitioners services have been terminated with retrospective effect. According to petitioner, this order is in defiance of the order dated 6,4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1326/2001. 2. The petitioner was put under suspension on 10.9.1996 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and although suspension order was revoked on 9.3.2000 and although the petitioner had filed a show cause to the charge-sheet yet the departmental proceeding had not been concluded. Accordingly, he moved this Court vide the aforementioned writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1326/2001. Further grievance of the petitioner is that although he remained under suspension w.e.f. 10.9.1996 to 9.3.2000 yet his subsistence allowance had not been paid. 3. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed off on 6.4.2001 with the following direction:-- (a) The authorities were directed to conclude the departmental proceedings within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order failing which it was ordered that the departmental proceeding would stand automatically quashed; (b) The respondent No. 3 was directed to pay all arrears of subsistence allowance within three weeks, if not already paid, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order failing which the said Respondent No. 3 was made liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suspension till disposal of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner has stated that after the order had been passed by this Court, he approached the respondent No. 3 with a copy of the order but he refused to accept the same and ultimately it was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 21.4.2001. According to petitioner, as stated in para 29, the then Deputy Commissioner. Deoghar directed the Executive Officer to comply with the order hut he did not do so. In the meantime, according to petitioner, the period of six weeks as fixed by this Court by Annexure-1 expired on 2.6.2001 and therefore, on and from that date, the departmental proceeding, by reason of the order of this Court passed on 6.4.2001 stood automatically quashed. In the meantime, according to petitioner, the period of six weeks as fixed by this Court by Annexure-1 expired on 2.6.2001 and therefore, on and from that date, the departmental proceeding, by reason of the order of this Court passed on 6.4.2001 stood automatically quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he also filed a representation on 21.4.2001 arid the period of three weeks fixed for payment of subsistence allowance also lapsed on 12.5.2001 hut even thereafter, no subsistence allowance was paid to him. The petitioner has stated that there- after he filed a contempt case being Contempt Case (C) No. 477/2001 which is said to be stillpending before this Court. The petitioner has stated that alter having come to know about the filing of the aforementioned contempt, application, the respondents filed an application for modification/recall of the order dated 6.4.2001 wherein they attempted to mislead this Court by stating that there was no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner and that the petitioner had already been dismissed from service vv.e.f. the date of suspension vide order dated 1.11.1997 and hence there was no question of payment of any subsistence allowance. 4. By order dated 15.6.2001 the aforementioned modification application was also dismissed. The petitioner has stated that he has been paid some amount but on 19,7.2001 the respondent No. 3 has passed an order terminating his services w.e.f. 16.7.2001 (Annexure - 9) by totally misinterpreting the order of this Court. 5. The respondents have stated that it is not correct that the order was received on 22.4.2001. According to the respondents, the order was received on 10.5.2001 and not on 22.4.2001 as stated by the petitioner. The respondents have further stated that in the show cause which they had filed in the contempt application, they have brought on record a letter of the petitioner dated 14.7.2001, in which the petitioner has himself admitted that the order of this Court had been transmitted to the office of the respondent No. 3 by the Deputy Commissioner. Deoghar and has been served in his office on 10.5.2001 and. therefore, the period of six weeks should be counted from 10.5.2001 and not from 22.4.2001. A photocopy of that letter dated 14.7.2001 was produced in Court for perusal. 6. Deoghar and has been served in his office on 10.5.2001 and. therefore, the period of six weeks should be counted from 10.5.2001 and not from 22.4.2001. A photocopy of that letter dated 14.7.2001 was produced in Court for perusal. 6. There is no substance in the aforementioned argument inasmuch as even if the same was received as has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents on 10.5.2001 even then, the period of six weeks as ordered by this Court, lapsed on 21.6.2001. Therefore, after 21.6.2001, the order of this Court passed earlier came into effect and on and from 21.6.2001 the departmental proceeding stood automatically quashed and as such, the order dated 19.7.2001 passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the petitioner from service, is without jurisdiction. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 19,7.2001 as contained at Annexure-9 is set aside. The respondents are directed to act in accordance with law alter taking into consideration the observations made and also by this Court earlier on 6.4.2001.