Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 356 (JHR)

Gorakh Nath Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-03-22

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by petitioner, who appears in person. Though it is a contempt petition but in the first paragraph, it is pleaded that the petitioner is desirous of issuance of an appropriate writ like mandamus and the certiorari against the respondents. 2. It may be mentioned that the petitioner is a Commercial Tax Officer of State of Bihar. While he was posted as Assistant Treasury Officer, Madhepura, was suspended by the State of Bihar vide Notification No. 1359 dated 12th July, 1999 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated but final order having not passed, petitioner moved before this Court in CWJC No. 1605 of 2001 and challenged the order of suspension. In the said case, it was not made clear whether the service of petitioner was placed within the territory of Jharkhand/State of Jharkhand or not. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 24th April, 2001 while did not choose to interfere with the order of suspension and the departmental proceeding, in the interest of justice allowed the petitioner to produce the copy of the Courts order before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department. It was made clear that if the service of the petitioner has been placed provisionally under the State of Jharkhand, he will produce a copy of the Courts order before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. On the other hand, if his service has been placed under the State of Bihar, he will produce a copy of the Courts order before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna. The concerned Officer was directed to ensure that the departmental proceeding is completed within four months from the date of production of the Courts order and if no final order is passed in the departmental proceeding within the aforesaid period, the order of suspension shall stand revoked. 3. It appears that the Government of Bihar, thereafter, imposed punishment vide order dated 25th August, 2001. 4. In the present case, though prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus, but the petitioner (in person) while argued the case, requested to initiate a contempt proceeding. According to him, this case has been filed by him for issuance of contempt proceeding. He further stated that the order of punishment has been passed behind his back violating the rules of natural justice. According to him, this case has been filed by him for issuance of contempt proceeding. He further stated that the order of punishment has been passed behind his back violating the rules of natural justice. The copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him, nor subsistence allowance was paid. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court reported in 1989 BLJ 321 and a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 BBCJI (SC). 5. The petitioner further informed that the respondents wanted to kill him by starvation which is a criminal act punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He has requested the Court to issue a warrant of arrest on the State officials and to set aside the punishment order dated 25th August, 2001. 6. In this case, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the service of petitioner has been placed under the State of Jharkhand. No notification under Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 has been issued by the Central Government placing the service of petitioner under the State of Jharkhand. The Annexure-3 enclosed to the writ petition merely shows that Committee only recommended to place the services of petitioner under the State of Jharkhand. In this background, no order having been passed by any of the officer of the State of Jharkhand, nor any such officer having violated the Courts order, no contempt proceeding can be initiated against them. 7. So far as legality and propriety of order of punishment dated 25th August, 2001 is concerned, this Court not inclined to determine such issue, the case having filed to initiate contempt proceeding. Further the cause of action having taken place in another State (Bihar); the petitioner may prefer an appeal against the order of punishment or may prefer a writ petition before appropriate Court. 8. This application is dismissed.