Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1128 (JHR)

Hari Shankar Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-09-10

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the Notification No. 740 dated 9th October, 2002 and Resolution No. 739, dated 9th October, 2002 issued by the State of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding has been initiated. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27th November, 2002 whereby the respondent have rejected the petitioners request for change of Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. 2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the order of suspension and departmental proceeding both have been issued at the instance of the 4th respondent-Smt. Raj Bala Verma who is also the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Jharkhand because of mala fide on her part and bias against the petitioner, the petitioner has also alleged bias the Enquiry Officer and the Presiding Officer, appointed by the 4th respondent-Smt. Raj Bala Verma. The petitioner has also challenged the jurisdiction of respondent-State of Jharkhand to suspend the petitioner. 3. As the allegation of mala fide is based on a number of facts, as alleged and number of documents have been enclosed by petitioner in its support, before deciding the said issue, it is desirable to decide the preliminary question of jurisdiction at the first instance. 4. From the facts pleaded by the parties, it appears that the petitioner who was in the services of State of Bihar prior to reorganisation of the State, his services were placed on deputation as Managing Director of Bihar State Co- operative Lac Marketing Federation (for short BISCOLAMF), a Co-operative Society registered with the State of Bihar under Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1953. Its office being at Ranchi, he was posted at Ranchi, now with the territory of Jharkhand. 5. After Reorgainsation of State, a separate Co-operative Society was formed in the State of Jharkhand, known as Jharkhand State Co-operative Lac Marketing Federation (for short JHASCOLAMF). The State of Jharkhand treated the petitioner as Managing Director of JHASCOLAMF, Ranchi, removed him from the post of Managing Director of JHASCOLAMF, Ranchi and kept him waiting for posting. Subsequently, the State of Jharkhand suspended the petitioner and initiated a departmental proceeding on the ground that the petitioner committed finan-cial irregularities in whole of his tenure as Managing Director, BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. 6. Subsequently, the State of Jharkhand suspended the petitioner and initiated a departmental proceeding on the ground that the petitioner committed finan-cial irregularities in whole of his tenure as Managing Director, BISCOLAMF, Ranchi. 6. It is not necessary to decide the question whether the BISCOLAMF, a Cooperative Society registered with the State of Bihar continued as a Co- operative Society of the State of Bihar or become a Multi State Co-operative Society since the date of Reorganization of the State. It is also not necessary to determine the issue whether the JHASCOLAMF, Ranchi has a separate identify of its own or has been carved our of BISCOLAMF, as per Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 by any order of the Central Government. 7. From the facts, as pleaded by the parties narrated above, it will be evident that since prior to 15th November, 2000 (the date of Reorganisation), the petitioner was in the services of the State. His posting at Ranchi within the territory of Chhotanagpur region was not in the capacity of any Government employee, rather he was on deputation in the BISCOLAMF, at Ranchi. Thus, since the date of Reorganisation of the State (i.e. 15th November, 2000), the petitioner never became an employee of the State of Jharkhand, but remained an employee of the State of Bihar on deputation in a Cooperative Society (BISCOLAMF). Provisions of Sections 72 and 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 are not applicable to the Bihar Government employees who are on deputation in some other organisation since prior to 15th November, 2000, even though posted within the territory of Jharkhand. The High Court decision in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung, reported in 2001 (2) JLJR 227 : 2001 (2) JCR 155 (Jhr) is not applicable to the employees who were on deputation. A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hari Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2003 (1) JCR 417 (Jhr) held that a person holding or discharging duties of any post of office in connection with affairs of existing State of Bihar being on deputation, Section 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 would not be applicable-State of Bihar is the competent authority of such person. 8. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, since Reorganisation of the State i.e. 15th November, 2000, the services of petitioner having never been placed under the State of Jharkhand, as on 14/15th November, 2000 as the petitioner was posted at Ranchi not under the State Government, but on deputation in a Co- operative Society (BISCOMALF) and no notification has been issued by the Central Government under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 allocating "the petitioner State of Jharkhand, in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hari Narayan Singh (supra), the State of Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to treat the petitioner as its employee or to transfer him by placing him in the Headquarter keeping him awaiting posting nor has any jurisdic-. tion to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner continued to be an employee of the State of Bihar, on deputation to BISCOMALF at Ranchi. 9. In view of the finding given above, it is not necessary to decide the other question i.e. mate fide as alleged by the petitioner against the 4th respondent-Smt. Raj Bala Verma. 10. The Notification of suspension of petitioner No. 740 dated 9th October, 2002 and the Resolution No. 739 dated 9th October, 2002 initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner, both having been issued by the State of Jharkhand, who has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action in respect to petitioner, they are set aside. 11. However, it will be open to the State of Jharkhand to bring to the notice of the State of Bihar, irregularity, if any, committed by the petitioner as the Managing Director of BISCOLAMF at Ranchi. 12. The writ petition is allowed. The original record as called for be handed over to the counsel for the State of Jharkhand.