Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2500 (JHR)

Ram Prit Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-19

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar. 2. Petitioner, a Junior Engineer then posted under Irrigation Division Murliganj, Madhepura in the State of Bihar was proceeded for unauthorized absence from 24.09.2001 to 14.05.2002 in a departmental proceeding vide resolution no. 5085 dated 21.06.2003, Annexure-1 issued by the Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Bihar. As per the specific statement made at para 18 and 22 of the writ petition, petitioner stood allocated to Jharkhand Cadre in the year 2004 and joined in the office of the Executive Engineer, Central Stores and Camp Division, Chandil on 18.10.2004. Upon conclusion of the inquiry a punishment of censure to be recorded in his ACR for the year 2001-02 was imposed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar vide order at Annexure-7 bearing memo no. 440 dated 07.05.2005. It was also held that petitioner would not be entitled to salary for the period of his unauthorized absence. 3. State of Jharkhand has filed an affidavit supporting the impugned decision taken by the State of Bihar on the ground that charge of unauthorized absence related to his posting in the State of Bihar and had been duly established. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar as services of the petitioner stood allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand in 2004 and he joined as such on 18.10.2004 before passing of the order of punishment. Reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Another, 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhr) to submit that competent authority/disciplinary authority to pass any such order of punishment could be the appointing authority under the successor State of Jharkhand to whom his services were allocated. 5. State of Bihar has not filed any counter affidavit. However learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar has not been able to overcome the legal hurdle in view of the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung (supra). 5. State of Bihar has not filed any counter affidavit. However learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar has not been able to overcome the legal hurdle in view of the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung (supra). As per the service book enclosed to the writ petition, petitioner was born on 02.03.1956 and joined as Junior Engineer under the respondent Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar on 05.05.1988. As on today, he has already attained the age of superannuation. 6. Considered the relevant material facts borne from records in order to test the legal plea raised by the petitioner i.e., lack of jurisdiction of the successor State of Bihar to pass the order of punishment after his allocation to the successor State of Jharkhand. Though charges related to the period after bifurcation of the parent State and to the territories falling under the successor State of Bihar i.e. Murliganj division under Madhepura District and were proceeded against as such by the respondent department of Government of Bihar but petitioner in the meantime stood allocated to the State of Jharkhand in 2004 which fact is not refuted by the respondent State of Jharkhand as well in its counter affidavit. As such, the competent authority/the disciplinary authority to impose any such punishment would be the authority under the Government of Jharkhand. The impugned order has been passed by the Respondent no. 7, Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar on 07.05.2005 (Annexure-7) after his allocation and joining under the State of Jharkhand. As such the order impugned suffers from lack of jurisdiction in view of the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung (supra) and therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is quashed. However the competent authority/respondent no. 3, Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the basis of the same materials found to have been established during course of inquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove.