Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 12 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1909 of 2012
Om Prakash Dubey, son of late Govardan Dubey, resident of
Karharbil, P.O. Dumka Town Ward No.9, Shiv Phar Near Mufshil,
P.S. Dumka, District Dumka ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District
Dumka
3. The Additional Collector, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District
Dumka ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P II
: Mr. Saurav Mahto, A.C. to G.P II
---
06/12.12.2022 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is present.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing of departmental proceeding initiated against the
petitioner vide memo no.320 dated 11.6.2007 whereby the departmental
proceeding has initiated against the petitioner is based on identical and similar
set of facts and the charges and in criminal case the petitioner has acquitted by
the court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka vide judgment
dated 26.2.2010 in G.R. Case No.274/2007.
(ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs for closing the departmental
proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide memo no.320 dated 11.6.2007 in
view of the facts in criminal case the petitioner has acquitted for identical and
similar set of facts.
(iii) To grant such other relief/relief's as the petitioner legally entitled
for."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
petitioner has challenged the initiation of departmental proceeding, but
one interlocutory application being I.A. No.1645 of 2012 indicates
that the departmental proceeding has culminated in order of
punishment of dismissal dated 02.04.2012. He submits that the said
interlocutory application has not been allowed by this Court so far.
The learned counsel submits that as the disciplinary proceedings has
ended in an order of punishment, the relief as prayed for in the present
writ petition has become infructuous for all practical purposes and if
the aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed it will change the
very nature of the writ petition.
5. Considering the nature of relief as sought for in the present writ
petition, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in
the main writ petition as the disciplinary proceeding has ended in an
order of punishment dated 02.04.2012.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
7. So far as the interlocutory application being I.A. No.1645 of
2012 is concerned, the departmental proceedings having culminated in
final order, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for
amendment of the writ petition. Accordingly, I.A. no.1645 of 2002 is
also dismissed.
8. However, Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to take steps in
connection with order of punishment passed in the disciplinary
proceedings in accordance with law. Dismissal of this case will not
prejudice the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
