Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 610 (PAT)

Santosh Kumar Singh (In Both) v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-19

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In both these writ appiications the petitioner is common and he has been dismissed from sen/ices, therefore, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a departmental proceeding being Proceeding No. 08 of 1996 was initiated against the petitioner for alleged absence from the training centre. 4. In the departmental proceeding the charges were found to be proved. The disciplinary authority, accordingly, passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from services. Subsequently, the petitioner was again proceeded against in Departmental Proceeding No. 18/97 for the charges that he again absented from duty unauthorisedly and in this proceeding for misconduct he was dismissed from services. 5. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13303 of 2001 submitted that the petitioner has twice been dismissed from services one after another without application of mind. It is further submitted that it would be discernible from the orders passed by the appellate authority that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned for dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner and it does not appear to be a case of proper application of mind and had the appellate authority applied its mind, it could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner twice in different proceedings. 6. From the orders passed by the appellate authority, as contained in annexures 6 and 3, respectively, it appears that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned nor they have applied its mind for proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellate authority is required to scrutinise the facts of the case and is further required to assign sufficient reasons either for allowing the same or dismissing it. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this view of the matter, submitted that the matter requires fresh consideration at the stage of appeal itself, as it would be a question of double jeopardy to the petitioner. 9. It is true that the petitioner has been dismissed one after another from services and earlier order of dismissal as contained in annexure 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 13303 of 2001 was not taken note of by the authorities while passing the order of dismissal against the same petitioner. 10. 9. It is true that the petitioner has been dismissed one after another from services and earlier order of dismissal as contained in annexure 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 13303 of 2001 was not taken note of by the authorities while passing the order of dismissal against the same petitioner. 10. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned, passed by the appellate authority, as contained in annexures 6 and 3, are not sustainable in law. 11. For the reasons, aforementioned, these applications are allowed, orders impugned, as contained in annexures 6 and 3, passed by the appellate authority, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to rehear the appeals filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same by speaking order in accordance with law.