Shyam Nandan Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 607 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.354 of 2021
     ======================================================

Shyam Nandan Singh, Son of Late Hridya Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- BARNAW, P.O. BARNAW, P.S.- AYER, Pin- 802203 District- Bhojpur, Presently Residing at Moh- Rajiv Nagar, Road No.14, Near Veer Kunwar Singh Chowk, P.O.- Keshri Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, Pin-800024, District-Patna.

... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt.

of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District and Sessions Judge, Civil Court Sasaram. P.S.-Sasaram, District- Rohtas.

3. The Judge-in-Charge, Civil Court Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas.

4. The Accountant General, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Kumari Amrita, GP-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-01-2022 This matter is heard via video conferencing due to

circumstances prevailing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

for the following reliefs:

(i) For issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to examine the entitlements of the petitioner under Modified Assured Career Progression (For short, M.A.C.P.) Rules 2010 taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the petitioner and also the consequential benefits thereof.

Patna High Court CWJC No.354 of 2021 dt.24-01-2022

(ii) For issuance of directions to Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Law Department Letter bearing No.3153, dated 10.4.2018 (Annexure-3) for grant of MACP."

4. Obviously, the petitioner was facing disciplinary

proceedings and it was concluded by imposing penalty of censure

on 30.07.2021.

5. The petitioner has questioned the validity of

imposition of penalty of censure by means of filing supplementary

affidavit.

6. In the main petition, the grievance of the petitioner is

relating to grant of MACP. MACP has been denied, as the

petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, both the

issues are entirely different, hence the petitioner cannot question

the validity of penalty in this writ petition where the petitioner has

sought for MACP.

7. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the

present petition stands dismissed. Consequently, supplementary

affidavit filed by the petitioner is also dismissed reserving liberty

to the petitioner to initially question the validity of censure. If the

petitioner succeeds in censure matter, thereafter the cause of action

would arise as to whether the petitioner is entitled to MACP or not.

Patna High Court CWJC No.354 of 2021 dt.24-01-2022

8. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) uday/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          28.01.2022
Transmission Date       NA