Shwetambar Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1881 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19382 of 2017
     ======================================================

Shwetambar Jha Son of Late Digambar Jha, Resident of Village-Koilakh, P.S.-Rajnagar, District-Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Commissioner, Koshi Commissionary, Saharsa.

3. The District Collector, Supaul.

4. The Deputy Collection District Establishment, Supaul.

5. The Senior Deputy Collector-Cum-Conducting Officer, Supaul.

6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Birpur, Supaul.

7. The Block Development Officer, Nirmali, Supaul.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Maya Shankar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Roy- GP18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-04-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents through video conference.

2. The following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner have

been claimed in the writ petition -

"(i) For quashing the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Koshi Commissionary, Saharsa in Service Appeal No. 97 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the order bearing Memo No. 1151-2 dated 08.09.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul has been confirmed by which the punishment of compulsory retirement from service to the petitioner was inflicted; further for quashing the aforesaid order bearing Memo No. Patna High Court CWJC No.19382 of 2017 dt.07-04-2021

1151-2 dated 08.09.2016;

(ii) For a direction upon the respondents to pay salary of petitioner from the date of issuance of Memo No. 1151-2 dated 08.09.2016 treating the petitioner in service giving the petitioner all legal and consequential benefits for which he is found to be entitled and further for any other relief/reliefs in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner

fairly accepts that there is statutory remedy by way of revision

under Rule 28 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005 against the impugned

appellate order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner,

Koshi Commissionary in Service Appeal No. 97 of 2016. As such,

the petitioner is capable of being granted the present relief in the

statutory forum of revision.

4. Learned counsel for the State appears and affirms that

the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of revision under

Rule 28 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005.

5. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not

inclined to enter upon the detailed merits of the matter. The writ

petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to

approach the concerned authority in revision as may be available

in accordance with law.

6. It is made clear that in case such a revision is filed, the

concerned authority would have regard to the present

proceeding being pursued by the petitioner while considering Patna High Court CWJC No.19382 of 2017 dt.07-04-2021

any issue relating to condonation of delay, if applicable.

(Vikash Jain, J)

Chandran/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                -
Uploading Date          08.04.2021
Transmission Date       -