Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 417 (PAT)

Bipin Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-04-12

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo dated 19.11.2002 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner who happens to be the Assistant in the Office of Child Development Project, Barbigha has been suspended by the District Magistrate. 2. It is the stand of the petitioner that the District Magistrate has no power to suspend an Assistant working in the Child Development Project. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8 in which it has been stated that the order of suspension passed by the District Magistrate was sent to the Director, Social Welfare for post facto approval, which was granted by letter as contained in memo dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure B) and, as such, the order of suspension cannot be said to be bad on account of the fact that the same was passed by the District Magistrate. 4. From the pleading of the party, it is evident that the order of.suspension has been passed by the District Magistrate who is not competent to pass such an order. The only question which falls for determination is as to whether the grant of approval by the Director of Social Welfare shall validate the order of suspension. 5. Mr. Thakur appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the order bad in law from the beginning cannot be validated by subsequent act of the Director. 6. JC to GP IV however contends that the Director of Social Welfare having granted post facto approval to the order of suspension, same cannot be said to be bad in law. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr.Thakur. Undisputedly the District Magistrate has no power to place an Assistant in the office of Child Development Project under suspension. He does not come in the hierarchy of the Department. 8. In that view of the matter the order, which is illegal right from the beginning cannot be validated by the Director. On this ground the order of suspension cannot be allowed to stand. 9. However this will not preclude the Director of Social Welfare to pass fresh order for suspension of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. In the result, application is allowed, impugned order as contained in memo dated 19th November, 2002 (Annexure-1) is quashed with the observation aforesaid. No cost.