Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 79 (JHR)

Tarkeshwar Bharti v. Union of India

2021-01-18

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the revisional order dated 14.03.2005 issued by respondent no.2, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and order in appeal; sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner, has been rejected. 3. Mr. Manish Kr, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a fit case, where the impugned order should be quashed on the ground of perversity. He further submits that in catena of judgments the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that though the High Court under its writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal, but certainly if it is a case of no evidence then the interference is must. He further submits that at the place of incidence, there were three sections with CRPF Personnel, but it is only this petitioner who has been dismissed from service. He further submits that he has taken specific ground in his revision application which has been filed in pursuance to the order of this Court that “……….all other constables charge- sheeted as well as named in the criminal case all such constables have been reinstated in service except me.” Relying upon the aforesaid ground taken in the revision application learned counsel tries to impress this Court that the same ground has not been considered by the authority concerned, though he has given finding on other grounds but the ground of discrimination has not been touched. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission, he submits that a liberty may be given to this petitioner to approach the concerned respondent who shall reconsider his case only on the ground of discrimination. 5. Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the revisional order is well reasoned order and the authority has touched each and every point. She further submits that there is no perversity in the order of punishment. Further, all the allegations have been proved against this petitioner. Even otherwise, the order of dismissal is of 2001 and the appellate order is of 2003 and the impugned order of revision is also of 2005, but the petitioner had filed the instant writ application after one year of the revisional order; as such, no interference is required. Further, all the allegations have been proved against this petitioner. Even otherwise, the order of dismissal is of 2001 and the appellate order is of 2003 and the impugned order of revision is also of 2005, but the petitioner had filed the instant writ application after one year of the revisional order; as such, no interference is required. However, learned counsel fails to demonstrate that there is any specific discussion on the ground of discrimination. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with this application, it appears that the petitioner had taken one of the grounds that all other constables charge-sheeted as well as named in the criminal case; all such constables have been reinstated in service except this petitioner. However, admittedly; this ground of discrimination has not been discussed by the revisional authority though on all other grounds he has given specific findings. In this view of the matter the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent no.2 along with copy of the revision application filed earlier within a period of two months from today. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 shall look into the matter and if the case of the petitioner is found same and similar and if the charges alleged against this petitioner are same and similar with other co-employees who have been reinstated in service, then necessary order be passed within a period of four months. It goes without saying that while passing the fresh order, the revisional authority shall not be prejudiced by the previous order and shall discuss only the ground of discrimination as taken by the petitioner in his revision application. 7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands disposed of.