Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 8 (PAT)

Shashi Kant Tiwari v. State Of Bihar

2013-01-07

NAVIN SINHA

body2013
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2012 passed by the In-charge Deputy Superintendent, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Hathua directing institution of a first information report against the concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was validly awarded a contract for cleaning etc. in the Sub-Divisional Hospital. A specified area was allotted to him along with others by an order dated 27.06.2006. Subsequently on 29.09.2007 he was asked to perform cleaning duties in additional area since the person to whom the additional area had been awarded did not performs duties. The petitioner raised bills for the entire area which were also paid but subsequently he is alleged to have raised bills in excess of area settled with him. No show cause notice was given much less any opportunity to explain before institution of the first information report. 4. Counsel for the State submits on instruction that first information report has already been lodged. 5. In absence of any challenge to the first information report in the present proceedings it is not possible for the Court to examine the same. It is left open for being questioned by the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. 6. The petitioner is not stated to be a complete interloper raising outright fictitious claims. His entry into the premises was lawful when he was awarded the contract. The allegation is for having raised bills for area in excess of that awarded. The defence is of a subsequent entrustment of additional area when the original person awarded did not work. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the correctness of the allegations or the defence. The institution of a first information report against a citizen is an extremely serious matter. It damages his reputation which cannot be easily resurrected even if final form is submitted that the allegation were not true. It leads to adverse consequences of possible arrest etc. The institution of F.I.R. itself may prejudice the concerned even if he was to apply for a similar contract subsequently opining that he was a tainted person. Fairness and reasonableness, in the facts of the present case, required the respondents to first give him a show cause notice with regard to the allegations and require him to refund any excess payment. Fairness and reasonableness, in the facts of the present case, required the respondents to first give him a show cause notice with regard to the allegations and require him to refund any excess payment. If the petitioner had failed to reply or his reply was not satisfactory, surely the respondents could have proceeded further in accordance with law including the present course of action. The respondents prime facie appear to have acted in haste. 7. If the petitioner files a proper representation before the Civil Surgeon and demonstrates to the authorities that he has not submitted bills for area in excess of that worked upon by him, it is expected that the respondents shall act reasonably and prudently by considering his explanation with necessary follow up action should they be satisfied of the same. 8. Let such representation be disposed off by the Civil Surgeon preferably within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 9. The application stands disposed.