Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1377 (JHR)

Bhasker Thappa v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-12

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER The defects are ignored. 2. Grievance of the appellants is that because of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2484 of 2008, the department may feel prejudiced because of the certain observations and may take legal action only because of the impugned order. Because of certain observations, the petitioners will be deprived of the considerations of his defence fairly by the Department. 3. However, we have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order dated 16.07.2012. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the earlier order dated 05.07.2012, and thereafter, opened the enquiry report, which was submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bokaro, Koyla Range. After opening the sealed cover in presence of counsel for the parties then thereafter, the learned Single Judge observed about what has been mentioned in the report submitted by the D.I.G. and then argument of the learned Advocate General was recorded. Then, thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioners' admission was recorded that the petition may be disposed of in the light of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos. 1-4. 4. The learned Single Judge merely directed the respondent to take necessary legal action in the matter of respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 and consider the candidature of the petitioners in the light of the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. We do not find any finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order with respect to the guilt of any of the persons including the appellants. The learned Single Judge after going through the reports referred in the impugned order directed to take necessary and legal action against the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 which only means that the Department may proceed to hold departmental enquiry or take any other legal action in accordance with law which includes giving full and fair opportunity to respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 to put their defence in the departmental enquiry as well as in any legal proceeding and State authority is required to apply mind to the facts of the case, and thereafter, can proceed to decide the said proceeding which has been initiated in view of the order of High Court dated 16.07.2012. 6. 5, 6 & 7 to put their defence in the departmental enquiry as well as in any legal proceeding and State authority is required to apply mind to the facts of the case, and thereafter, can proceed to decide the said proceeding which has been initiated in view of the order of High Court dated 16.07.2012. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submitted that without holding any enquiry the department decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. However, from the documents placed on record at Page No. 9 of the supplementary affidavit dated 05.09.2012, we are of the view that this is only show cause notice in view of the note appended below the main contents of the allegations, thereby, the petitioners were asked to submit their explanation for allegations. Therefore, this is a show cause notice only and not an order to terminate the appellants' service in any manner. Now the Department may proceed to conduct the departmental enquiry uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or in the order impugned. However, we are making it clear that in the impugned order also there is no finding recorded against the appellants, therefore, the Department will proceed to hold the enquiry in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.