Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2423 (PAT)

Ram Narayan Mistri v. State of Bihar

2011-12-08

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2011
ORDER Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This voluminous writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to produce a copy of the charge by which they have concluded that the petitioner has withdrawn his salary from 01.05.1993 to 2000. 3. The second prayer in the writ application is that the respondents ought to explain as to why no action for terminating respondent no. 14 Ramautar Prasad and respondent no. 15 Ratendra Prasad, who were also appointed by Dr. A.A. Mallick. 4. The petitioner claims that he had not withdrawn salary from 01.0.1993 to 2000 after his termination in the year 1993. The petitioner was appointed by Dr. A.A. Mallick and was finally terminated from service. It is the claim of the petitioner that there is no material whatsoever to indicate that the petitioner had withdrawn salary even after his termination in the year 1993. Therefore, he has prayed that the copy of the charge may be supplied to him. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the acquittance roll, the bills etc. for the period 1993 to 2000 will indicate that the petitioner had not withdrawn any sum of money by way of salary and as such the First Information Report has been filed without any basis. 5. In order to support his case, the petitioner has annexed several documents which are supposedly enquiries made by different Officials indicating that there is no material to substantiate allegations that the petitioner had withdrawn salary between the period 1993 to 2000. These documents cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, as there is already a criminal proceeding pending with respect to the charges aforesaid. 6. These documents cannot be considered by this Court at this stage, as there is already a criminal proceeding pending with respect to the charges aforesaid. 6. As far as the prayer of the petitioner that copy of the charge may be supplied to him, the proper stage for making such an application or for that matter, making any application with respect to the documents relating to the case would be at the stage of the trial regarding the claim that there is no material to support the allegations in the First Information Report, this Writ Court could hardly adjudicate and step into the shoes of the Trial Court for the purpose of evaluating the material that have been placed by the petitioner and as such, I find that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. 7. Regarding the second prayer of the petitioner, which seeks an explanation as to why respondents 14 and 15 have been retained in service, although they were appointed by Dr. A. A. Mallick and have been reinstated after their removal sometime in the year 1998, this Court has to say that the prayer is belated. This prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable at this stage as it is belated action being bought on his behalf after ten years. Moreover, it would appear from Annexure-15 that there is an order of this Court with respect to reinstatement of respondent no. 15. Similarly, respondent no. 14 has been reinstated in service vide Annexure-11 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar after considering all aspects of the matter, in compliance with an order of this Court. 8. In the result, I find that the prayer of the petitioner challenging the appointment/reinstatement of respondents 14 and 15 is without any basis. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. ?