Patna High Court
Bipin Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 17 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.568 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6429 of 2008
======================================================
Bipin Kumar Singh, S/o Late Kuldeep Narayan Singh, R/o - Village -
Shukhpur Dyordhi, P.O. - Shukhpur Dyordhi, P.S. - Supaul, District - Supaul.
At present residing at Mohalla - Dani Bigha, P.O. - Dani Bigha, P.S. -
Aurangabad Town, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District and Session Judge, Aurangabad.
3. The Sub-Judge III-cum-Judge Incharge, Civil Court, Aurangabad.
4. The 5th Additional District and Session Judge, Aurangabad.
5. The Additional District and Session Judge, (F.T.C. V), Aurangabad.
6. The Additional District and Session Judge, (F.T.C. IV), Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 17-02-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.568 of 2022 dt.17-02-2025
dated 22.08.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6429 of 2008, whereby the
punishment inflicted upon the appellant has not been
interfered with.
3. It appears from the records that the
appellant, who was a Bench Clerk-cum-Office Clerk of
Fast Track Court No. IV, Aurangabad, was placed under
suspension and was proceeded against departmentally for
having burnt 111 Court records. After following the
procedure, the appellant was visited with the
consequence of penalty of reduction of pay-scale of Rs.
4000 - 6000/- to Rs. 3050 - 4590/-.
4. The contention of the appellant before the
learned Single Judge was that the Presenting Officer was
not appointed. Apart from this, it has been submitted
that such reduction of salary, in perpetuity, is not
contemplated in the departmental rules with respect to
imposition of punishment.
5. The learned Single Judge found from the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.568 of 2022 dt.17-02-2025
averments made on behalf of the respondents that the
Inquiry Officer as also the Presenting Officer were
appointed and the departmental proceeding was held in
accordance with the rules.
6. The contention of the appellant before the
learned Single Judge that the appointment of the
Presenting Officer or the Inquiry Officer was not
communicated to him was repelled on the ground that
there was no such requirement under the rules governing
the case of the appellant, namely, the Bihar Civil Court
Staffs (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1998.
7. The other ground raised on behalf of the
appellant was also not found to be sustainable, namely,
that the author of Document No. 3, in the list of
documents, had not been examined.
8. The records revealed that the author of
Document No. 3 was employed in Godrej Company and
had already left his assignment.
9. We have found no good reason to interfere
Patna High Court L.P.A No.568 of 2022 dt.17-02-2025
with the order of the learned Single Judge, referred to
above.
10. There is no merit in this appeal and it is,
accordingly, dismissed.
11. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
