Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 205 (CHH)

PARMANAND v. STATE OF CO.

2008-08-08

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to withdraw the charge of B.M.O. Bilha from the respondent No.5 and Teacher, Govt. School, Chakarbhata from the respondent No.6 and treat them under suspension during the pendency of the criminal appeal filed by the State against the respondents No.5 and 6. 2. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, a criminal case was registered against the respondents No.5 and 6 and four other accused persons for committing marpeet with Dhannamal and Madho Das. Dhannamal is father of the petitioner and Madho Das is brother of the petitioner. The first information report of the said incident dated 24.11.1992 was lodged in the police station by the petitioner. After criminal trial the respondents No.5 and 6 were convicted and sentenced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur by judgment dated 20th November. 2000, passed in Criminal Case No. 717/96. Thereafter, the respondents No.5 and 6 filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 195/2000 & 196/2000, respectively, wherein vide judgment dated 19.4.2001, passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, they were acquitted of the charges. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Criminal Appeal Nos. 919/200l and 917/2001, filed by the State and Criminal Revision No. 190/2001, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.4.2001 are pending before this Court. 4. It is apparent that during the criminal trial, the respondents No.5 and 6 were placed under suspension but after the judgment dated 19.4 .2001, in criminal appeals, they were reinstated in service. The respondent No.5 was given the charge of B.M.O. Bilha and the respondent No.6 was given the charge of Teacher in Govt. School, Chakarbhata. Objecting the reinstatement and posting of the respondents No.5 and 6 the petitioner filed representations (Annexure P/4 and P/ 5). Being aggrieved by the reinstatement and posting of the respondents No.5 and 6, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. I am unable to understand how the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents/authorities revoking the suspension order of the respondents No.5 and 6, who might have been placed under suspension during, the pendency of the criminal trial. The respondents/authorities, after their exoneration in criminal appeal, have rightly revoked the suspension of the respondents No.5 and 6. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. The respondents/authorities, after their exoneration in criminal appeal, have rightly revoked the suspension of the respondents No.5 and 6. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others held as under: " 12. According to most English decisions, in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person" and, in a case of defect of jurisdiction, such a petitioner will be entitled to a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfill that character, and is a "stranger", the Court will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances. ii 13. This takes us to the further question: who is an "aggrieved person" and what are the qualifications requisite for such a status The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and to an extent, and elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. English courts have sometimes put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression "aggrieved person". However, some general tests have been devised to ascertain whether an applicant is eligible for this category so as to have the necessary locus standi or 'standing' to invoke certiorari jurisdiction." 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman held as under: "17 (iii) "Any aggrieved party", the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proceedings, who has succeeded in securing the relief prayed for, is not a party aggrieved though the order contains a finding or two adverse to him. The respondent can support the order and pray for the ultimate decision being sustained, without filing a revision of his own, and for achieving such end he may seek reversal of any findings recorded against him. The respondent can support the order and pray for the ultimate decision being sustained, without filing a revision of his own, and for achieving such end he may seek reversal of any findings recorded against him. However, if the non-petitioning party feels entitled to a more beneficial or larger order in his favour but was allowed a lesser or smaller relief then to the extent of claiming the more beneficial or larger relief the should have filed a revision petition of his own as he was "an aggrieved party" to that extent." 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of P. Lal Vs. Union of India and others held as under: "19 He submitted that Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides that it is only a "person aggrieved" who can file an application before the Tribunal. In support of his submission he relied upon the cases of Thammanna Vs. K. Veera Reddy and Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M V. Dabholkar wherein it has been held that a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance i.e. a man who has been wrongfully deprived of something or to whom something has been refused wrongfully " 9. In view of the well settled principles of law, with regard to the 'aggrieved person', the petitioner cannot be held as 'aggrieved person' as by revocation of suspension, the petitioner has not suffered any legal grievance or has been deprived of any legal or statutory right, Even otherwise, on merits, a Government employee can be placed under suspension under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the case on hand, the respondents No.5 and 6 were acquitted in the Sessions Court, and as such, no investigation, inquiry or trial is pending against them. On the ground of pendency of criminal appeal and criminal revision in the High Court, the respondents No.5 and 6 cannot be put under suspension. 10. In view of the foregoing, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.