Jaibind Kumar vs The High Court Of Jharkhand At ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3246 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    (Civil Review Jurisdiction)

                      Civil Review No.15 of 2019

Jaibind Kumar, son of Shri Kishori Singh, at present resident of
C/o-Shri Madan Sahu, Chhatar Bagicha, PO-Lohardaga, PS and
District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand                    ... Petitioner

                                Versus
1. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi through its Registrar
General, having its office at Doranda, PO&PS-Doranda, Town and
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Civil Courts,
Lohardaga, having office at Lohardaga, PO, PS and District-
Lohardaga, Jharkhand
3. Sri Sanjay Prasad, son of not known to the appellant/petitioner,
the then Principal District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga-cum-
Disciplinary Authority, presently posted as Principal Law Secretary,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Law Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi, PO&PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Enquiry Officer-cum- the then District Judge-I, Civil Courts
Lohardaga, now retired from the post of Principal District Judge,
Simdega, at present Vijay Kumar Sharma, 1-D Bharat Block, Sita
Kunj near Dr. S.N.Yadav Hospital, Karamtoli Chowk, PO-Ranchi
Univesity, PS-Bariyatu, District-Ranchi
5. Shri Shesh Nath Singh, son of not known to the
appellant/petitioner, the then Judge In-charge, Civil Courts,
Lohardaga, presently posted at District Judge-IX Civil Courts,
Jamshedpur, PO-Sakchi, PS-Sitaramdera, District-East Singbhum,
Jharkhand
6. The State of Jharkhand, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand,
Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi                                    ... Respondents

                   (Heard through V.C on 3rd September, 2021)
                             -------
                           PRESENT
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner   : Mr. Jaibind Kumar, In-person
For the State        : Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, SC (L&C)-I
                       Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
                                 -------
                            Oral Judgment
                         03rd September, 2021

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

In a department proceeding which was initiated vide Memorandum dated 12.06.2012 the charges framed against the delinquent officer were found proved and he was dismissed from

service - one of the charges is that the records of Title Suit No. 07 of 2001 were found missing on account of negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. The decision of the appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015 - the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 12.08.2013 was dismissed. The writ Court declined to interfere with the punishment of dismissal from service and the Letters Patent Court also did not interfere in the matter.

2. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33719 of 2018 which was dismissed in the following terms :

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material.

We find no merit in the special leave petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed."

3. The petitioner has now filed this civil review petition on 01.02.2019 seeking review of the order dated 21.08.2018 by which LPA No. 374 of 2016 was dismissed by this Court.

4. In a 35-pages written submission the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, writ Court and the Letters Patent Court. But before we advert to the submissions made by the petitioner who has today appeared In-person, we feel it necessary to record that this civil review petition which was filed with a delay of 132 days has remained in defects for several months inspite of three opportunities granted to the petitioner by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) and the learned Registrar General. On 08.11.2019 the civil review petition was placed before the Court and on that day this Court reluctantly granted four weeks further time for removing the defects.

5. The delay of 132 days in filing this civil review petition was condoned by the Court by an order dated 19.03.2021 and, accordingly, I.A. No. 4824 of 2019 which was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed.

6. The reason why this civil review petition was not listed four weeks after the order dated 08.11.2019 is recorded in the

order dated 19.03.2021. The primary reason why this civil review petition could not be heard was that in the meantime the pandemic of COVID-19 engulfed the whole country. But on 19.03.2021 also the learned counsel for the petitioner was not ready to argue this civil review petition and on his request the matter was adjourned for 23.04.2021. Mr. Pravin Kumar Rana, the learned counsel for the petitioner unfortunately tested COVID positive and taking note of an email received from the petitioner hearing of this civil review petition was adjourned. We are informed that Mr. Pravin Kumar Rana, the learned counsel for the petitioner has passed away and therefore we have offered the petitioner legal aid. However the petitioner has insisted that he wants to argue this civil review petition himself by appearing In-person.

7. The petitioner In-person has read out the entire written submission filed on his behalf in the present proceeding and urged that the order dated 21.08.2018 passed in LPA No. 374 of 2016 needs reconsideration and finally he be reinstated in service.

8. Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, the learned State counsel has however opposed this civil review petition contending that in view of the limited scope under the review jurisdiction and the fact that all the pleas urged by the petitioner were duly considered by the Division Bench, this civil review petition warrants dismissal. The learned State counsel further submits that reconstruction of records of Title Suit No. 07 of 2001 would have no bearing on the merits of the matter.

9. In his written submission, the petitioner would submit that (i) various irregularities were committed by the inquiring officer, such as, (a) he did not permit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner, (b) did not provide necessary documents so that he could have prepared his written defence and no notice of the proceedings before him was given to him, (ii) disciplinary authority has committed various acts of illegality and that was the reason he had made a specific prayer in WP(S) No. 3219 of 2013 for transfer of the proceeding from him; the learned District Judge illegally did not sanction an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which he required for angioplasty; replies of the petitioner submitted against each charge

were not considered, and; the disciplinary authority sent him second show-cause notice, inquiry report and the penalty order in one go, (iii) parity in punishment was not maintained by the disciplinary authority in as much as Mahendra Ram who was working as Grade-III employee was let off with minor penalty, and

(iv) the judgments which were filed by the petitioner along with Memorandum of Appeal and the additional documents produced by him were not considered by Division Bench.

10. At the outset, we observe that in a review petition which has been filed after the petitioner suffered six set backs his plea for reopening of the departmental proceeding cannot be entertainment. In "Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh" AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. In "Lily Thomas vs. Union of India" (2000) 6 SCC 224 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

11. In the written submission, the petitioner has pointed out errors in paragraph nos. 2, 3, 8, 9 and 12 of the order dated 21.08.2018 passed in LPA No. 374 of 2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that (i) the Court has misconstrued his reply dated 14.05.2012 to show-cause notice as reply to the charges, (ii) the petitioner duly replied to the second show-cause notice which was ignored by the Division Bench, and (iii) the proceeding in WP(S) No. 3219 of 2013 was not properly appreciated by the Division Bench in as much as there was a specific prayer made for transfer of departmental proceeding before another officer.

12. In the order dated 21.08.2018 passed in LPA No. 374 of 2016, we have recorded that when the petitioner did not appear in the departmental proceeding second show-cause notice was published in the newspaper on 06.05.2013 and thereafter the order of dismissal from service was inflicted by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 12.08.2013. It is a matter of record that several notices were issued to the petitioner and he had knowledge of the

ongoing departmental proceeding against him. The publication in the newspaper on 06.05.2013 has also not been disputed by the petitioner and while so, his grievance that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to him by the inquiring officer to defend himself is without any substance. The so-called errors pointed out by the petitioner in the order of Division Bench are therefore just self serving statements of the petitioner. The plea urged by the petitioner that a copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to him is also over-looking the fact that he did not participate in the departmental proceeding and, moreover, is not a substantial ground to overturn the order of dismissal. He has not only preferred a statutory appeal, he came to this Court thrice and approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33719 of 2018. In so far as plea on parity is concerned, we do not find from the records of WP(S) No. 3219 of 2013 and LPA No. 374 of 2016 that the records pertaining to disciplinary proceeding of Mahendra Ram and the order of punishment passed against him were brought on record and a specific plea of parity in punishment was taken by him.

13. Finally, the petitioner takes exception to the observation by Division Bench as regards limited powers of the writ Court and cites various judgments to submit that the writ Court can interfere with the order of punishment if it is found that the order passed by the departmental authority is arbitrary, capricious, malafide and based on extraneous consideration. Nothing more than that, the order of dismissal from service has been examined and approved by the Court, is required to be indicated by us to the above plea raised by the petitioner. The document relied upon by the petitioner which is a document retrieved from website of the Court which reflects that records of Title Suit No. 07 of 2001 has now "almost been reconstructed". The reconstruction of the records of title suit would not absolve the petitioner from the charges framed and found proved against him rather reconstruction of the records would reiterate the stand of the department against him. It was not a simple case of misplacing the file as was the case in "Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd." (2003) 8 SCC 9,

the materials on record indicate that with active connivance of the petitioner entire records of Title Suit No. 07 of 2001 were caused to be lost.

14. In the end, we observe that the present review petition if not strictly an abuse of the process of the Court reflects an act of desperation on the part of the petitioner. We do not find a plea akin to the grounds mentioned under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to entertain this review petition and, accordingly, Civil Review No. 15 of 2019 is dismissed.

15. The pending application(s), if any, is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

Tanuj/