Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1097 (JHR)

Bijendra Kumar Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2020-11-25

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar and Ms. Pinki Tiwari, the learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of dismissal order dated 01.12.2001 contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The prayer is also made for consequential benefits. It was alleged that in pursuant to the Advertisement No.1 of 1998 the appointments were made of the constables in Chaibasa District on the basis of reserved categories. In the category of Home Guard total 132 candidates were appointed for the post of constables. On the basis of I.G. and D.I.G., Jharkhand through letter no.45/P dated 12.01.2001 mentioning that there is an information regarding appointment of constables on the basis of false and forge home guard certificates for the post of constables has been made. The matter was inquired into and the criminal case was lodged against the 39 constables. The criminal case being Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.31/2001 corresponding to G.R.no.211 of 2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. He further submits that 15 other accused who were similarly situated in the said criminal case have moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.6246 of 2016 which was allowed with certain direction. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the fact that the petitioner is also named in the same P.S. case wherein the petitioner has been acquitted along with other 15 persons who were granted relief in W.P.(S) No.6246 of 2016. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Bihar and Ms. Pinky Tiwari, the learned counsel jointly accept this position that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of Annexure-11, the order passed in the said writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Bihar and Ms. Pinky Tiwari, the learned counsel jointly accept this position that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of Annexure-11, the order passed in the said writ petition. 4. In view of the above facts and considering the fact that the case of the petitioner is fully covered, the writ petition is being disposed of in the light of the discussions made in W.P.(S) No.6246 of 2016, the impugned order dated 01.12.2001 is quashed. As a result of quashment of the impugned order, the matter is being remitted back to the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa to consider the same and pass a fresh order taking into account the acquittal of the petitioner and also the observation made in W.P.(S) No.6246 of 2016 within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner will supply the copy of W.P.(S) No.6246 of 2016 to the concerned respondent. 5. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.