Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 618 (PAT)

Bindeshwari Narayan Bhatt v. State Of Bihar

2002-05-16

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition. 2. On hearing him it appears that the real object behind this case is quite different from the innocuous reliefs prayed for in the petition. 3. The petitioner is an employee of the Bihar School Examination Board and he filed this writ petition praying for directions to the respondent authorities to allow him annual increments which are stopped from 1991 and to grant him the second time bound promotion. But in course of arguments it was revealed that the real object was to get the disciplinary proceeding quashed that remains pending against the petitioner. 4. The annual increments of the petitioner were stopped in the year 1991 and he was also not given the second time bound promotion. The petitioner tries to tell the court that the denial of annual increments and time bound promotion to him was because the Board was acting in a completely arbitrary and unreasonable manner. But the fact of the matter is that there is a disciplinary proceeding against him that remains unconcluded. 5. On 20.9.1991 the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary action. The charges against him were of a very serious nature and related to his illegal acts to help sixty two examinees of the Annual Secondary Examination, 1991 in getting their results published unauthorisedly. 6. On materially the same charges a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner for offences punishable under different sections of the Penal Code. 7. Two years later the petitioner was relieved from suspension by order, dated 28.7.1993 with the express stipulation that the disciplinary proceeding against him would remain subsisting. However, the disciplinary proceeding under contemplation has not been initiated and till date he has not been given any charge sheet. The reason for this, presumably, is the fact that the criminal case remains pending. As is not uncommon in this State, investigation seems to have become interminable and the police has not been able to submit a final report even after 11 years. The authorities in the Board in their turn appear to be quite reticent about initiating the disciplinary proceeding for fear of an objection by the petitioner that that would compromise his defence in the criminal case and in this situation the matter rests at that stage. 8. The authorities in the Board in their turn appear to be quite reticent about initiating the disciplinary proceeding for fear of an objection by the petitioner that that would compromise his defence in the criminal case and in this situation the matter rests at that stage. 8. In these facts and circumstances this court made a pointed query to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether he was willing to give an assurance that he would not raise an objection against the disciplinary proceeding on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. The court made in clear that if the petitioner was willing to give this assurance, the court might consider directing the competent authority in the Board to initiate and conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner within two or three months. Counsel for the petitioner, however, will not settle for anything less than an outright quashing of the charges and the disciplinary proceeding. 9. Mr. Dinu Kumar submitted that it was no longer open to the Board to initiate a proceeding on the charges which were now 11 years old. He also relied upon some decisions in support of his submissions. 10. It is indeed true that normally the courts discourage any disciplinary action on old and stale charges but that is not due to any statutory bar but on principles of equity, reasonableness, and fairness. In this case, however, I fail to see any equity or fairness on the side of the petitioner. Having regard to the grave nature of charges and further having regard to the petitioners attitude before this Court I am not inclined to pass an order, quashing the disciplinary proceeding pending against him and in the facts and circumstances of the case I would rather not exercise my discretion under Article 226 in favour of the petitioner. 11. This writ petition is dismissed. 12. This order is being passed in presence of Mr. S.D. Yadav, counsel for the Board.