Patna High Court
Lalji Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 2 January, 2024
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2360 of 2018
======================================================
Lalji Singh Son of Late Dukhi Singh, Resident of Village- Medh, P.O.- Sirsi,
P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabhua.
6. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kaimur (Bhabhua).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7
Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, AC to SC-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. This writ application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the respondent
No.4 in Service Appeal No.770 of 2014 whereby the service
appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.10.2014
passed by District Magistrate (Bhabhua)/respondent No.5
contained in Memo No.1829 has been dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.2360 of 2018 dt.02-01-2024
that in compliance of order dated 22.11.2023 a supplementary
counter affidavit has been filed by the State which he has
already received. Counsel for the petitioner consistently relied
on his one pleading that memo of article of charge has not been
served upon him and without said memo of charge the entire
departmental proceeding has proceeded and, as such, the said
departmental proceeding is in gross violation of natural justice
and, therefore, the entire process are bad-in-law. Counsel
further submits that in the original order passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as in the appellate order passed by
the Commissioner this aspect has not been considered. Counsel
submits that for the first time this Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 22.11.2023 has pleased to acknowledge the argument of
the petitioner and directed the State to serve document, by
which it transpires that article of charge has been actually served
upon the petitioner. In this regard, the counter affidavit has been
filed. But in the said counter affidavit, the proof of service of
article of charge has not been annexed. Therefore, he submits
that his argument is very clear that the copy of article of charge
has not been served upon him and, hence, the entire original
order as well as appellate order be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
Patna High Court CWJC No.2360 of 2018 dt.02-01-2024
hand, submits that the copy of article of charge has been served
upon the petitioner. He relied upon Annexure-U as well as
Annexure-7 of the writ petition, in which the reply has been
filed in the form of show-cause on the point of memo of charge.
In these two annexures, there is no whisper made by the
petitioner that he has not been served the charge memo. This
point has not been taken either in Annexure-7 or in Annexure-
U. As such, the only point on which the petitioner moved before
the Hon'ble Court that charge memo has not been served is not
appears to be correct.
5. Upon going through the original order as well
as appellate order, it transpires to this Court that a detailed order
with specified reasons the punishment order has been passed
and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
original order as well as appellate order. Accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
