Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1401 (PAT)

Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar

2013-12-06

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State of Bihar and Jharkhand as well as Union of India. Both the writ applications are taken up together for disposal. 2. The matter pertains to cadre allocation of petitioner, who is in Bihar Agriculture Service. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 11710 of 2011, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 13.06.2006 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby the authorities have been directed to relieve the petitioner in view of decision of Central Government allocating him Jharkhand Cadre. The petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 07.12.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby he has been directed to join State of Jharkhand as early as possible with consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Graduate in the year 1986. Later on, he was promoted to Bihar Agriculture Services Class-I. The Department vide letter dated 31.08.2006 suspended the petitioner for defalcation of a sum of Rs.1,41,900/- and a departmental proceeding was initiated vide Memo no.1302 dated 31.08.2006. The petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceeding on 18.06.2008. The petitioner on being exonerated from departmental proceeding requested for revocation and posting vide letter dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure-3). 5. The Departmental subsequently removed the suspension on 19.05.2010. On 19.05.2010 a show-cause was issued to the petitioner for making belated representation for revocation of suspension and posting on 13.04.2010 when he was exonerated from charge on 18.06.2008. 6. The petitioner gave his joining on 28.05.2010 and submitted his show-cause reply on 01.06.2010. 7. The petitioner’s case is that for the first time he came to learn from letter dated 07.12.2010 that he was allocated Jharkhand cadre in the year 2006 in terms of decision of Central Government dated 28.06.2006. By the said letter dated 07.12.2010 in continuation of the said allocation to Jharkhand in the year 2006, the petitioner was directed to give his joining in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner asserts that never in past he was communicated any order by which he has been allocated Jharkhand cadre. On the other hand, the Agriculture Department, State of Bihar started a departmental proceeding in August, 2006 and placed him under suspension on 31.08.2006. Furthermore, the Department exonerated him from the charge on 18.06.2008. The petitioner asserts that never in past he was communicated any order by which he has been allocated Jharkhand cadre. On the other hand, the Agriculture Department, State of Bihar started a departmental proceeding in August, 2006 and placed him under suspension on 31.08.2006. Furthermore, the Department exonerated him from the charge on 18.06.2008. The aforesaid facts do support the petitioner’s stand that he was not relieved for joining the State of Jharkhand. 8. Counsel for the State submits that in any view of the mater, the petitioner admittedly became aware of allocation of his cadre to Jharkhand State in July, 2010, when he was asked by letter dated 07.10.2010 contained in Annexure-9 to give his joining in the said State. 9. The petitioner is not able to give any convincing answer to the same, save and except that he has challenged the order dated 07.12.2010 in this writ application. 10. The petitioner draws my attention to order dated 06.01.2012 whereby status quo was granted. It appears that in view of the representation of the petitioner, the State Advisory Committee made a recommendation to the Central Government for allocation of Bihar Cadre to the petitioner, which was subsequently approved by the Central Government on 04.01.2013. However, the order of the Central Government allocating Bihar Cadre to the petitioner was brought to the notice of the Court on 26.09.2013. The letter of the Central Government was placed on record by the Union of India for the first time on 11.11.2013. As the Central Government has subsequently allocated Bihar Cadre to the petitioner, the dispute of cadre allocation stands sorted out. The issue that arises for consideration is that as to how the period between 15.07.2012 till the date of final allocation of Bihar cadre ought to be treated. The stand of the State Government is that the petitioner has not submitted his joining in the Department. The petitioner states that as order of the Central Government dated 04.01.2013 was never communicated to him, he was unable to give a fresh joining consequent to it. 11. Nothing appears from the counter affidavit either of the State Government or of the Central Government that the order of Central Government finally allocating Bihar cadre to the petitioner on 04.01.2013 was communicated prior to 11.11.2013. 12. 11. Nothing appears from the counter affidavit either of the State Government or of the Central Government that the order of Central Government finally allocating Bihar cadre to the petitioner on 04.01.2013 was communicated prior to 11.11.2013. 12. Now that petitioner is aware of it, he should give his joining forthwith, which would be duly accepted by the respondents. Thereafter the respondent State would consider the other consequential issues. The impugned order dated 13.06.2006 and 07.12.2010 loses its efficacy in view of order of Central Government dated 04.01.2013, which finally has settled the issue of cadre allocation. The issue is as to how the interregnum period would be treated for purposes of continuity of service, salary etc. The matter should be addressed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. C.W.J.C. No.11710 of 2011 is disposed of accordingly. 14. In C.W.J.C. No.12285 of 2011, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order bearing Memo no.918 dated 30.11.2010 passed by respondent no.4 whereby the recovery of 50% of subsistence allowance for the period 18.06.2008 to 13.04.2010 has been ordered. 15. The said order is on the premise that the petitioner submitted his representation for revocation of suspension belatedly. I find that the petitioner could not be faulted for the same as it was respondents who had withdrawn the suspension and it was for them to issue necessary orders for joining. As such the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure-10) of CWJC No.12285 of 2011 is quashed. 16. Both the writ applications are thus disposed of.