Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Pandey ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 144 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W.P.(S) No. 5370 of 2022
                                        ----

Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Pandey @ Priyanka Kumari Pandey, wife of Shri Vishnu Singh Tiwary and daughter of Shri Ram Raj Pandey, resident of Village, PO PS Pandu, District Palamau.

                                                            ...    Petitioner
                                       -versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

2. Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department of the Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, Palamau at Medini Nagar.

4. Dy. Development Commissioner, Palamau at Medni Nagar.

5. Block Development Officer, Utari Road, Palamau at Medini Nagar.

                                                            ...    Respondents
                                          ----
                  CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                                         ----
                   For the Petitioner :  xxx

For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, SC (Mines) II

----

4/ 06.01.2023 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present.

2. Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the fact that the representation of the petitioner is pending before the competent authority, this writ petition can be disposed of.

3. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to accept his appointment as Rojgar Sewak.

4. Petitioner was trapped while accepting bribe for which a criminal case was instituted. Petitioner got convicted by Special Judge, ACB, Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No.9 of 2011. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.887 of 2019. The said appeal was heard and ultimately, vide judgment dated 10.08.2020, the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was acquitted. After acquittal, the petitioner went to give her joining, but the same was neither accepted nor refused. The petitioner's representation is pending before the competent authority.

5. Since the representation of the petitioner is pending before the competent authority, I direct the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Palamau (respondent No.3) to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order and decide as to whether joining of the petitioner will be accepted or denied. The reasoned

order should be handed over to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If it is held that the petitioner will be allowed to join, a consequential order should be passed immediately.

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/S.K./Cp-02