RAMA SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions, the petitioners felling aggrieved by an order dated 26-11-1988 purported to have been passed under Rule 74(a) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), compulsorily retireing them from service with effect from the date of issue of the notification, have moved this Court. As the facts and law involved in both the writ petitions are common, therefore, by common judgment with the consent of the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of.

(2.) the salient facts giving rise to these petitions are that petitioner Md. Dawood Nadeem was Initially appointed as Lower Division Assistant in the Jail Department on 2-4-1962. He was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and subsequently confirmed on the said post with effect from 5-6-1971. Because of his excellent service career, he was subsequently appointed as Assistant Jailor on 1-9-1972 and confirmed on the said post with effect from 1-9-1973. The State Government after considering his entire character rolls pranted Time Bound Promotion in the Selection Grade vide its order dated 4-6-1988. Petitioner Rama Shankar Mishra was initially appointed as warder in the Central Jail, Bhagalpur on 1-8-1958 and was subsequently confirmed on the said post with effect from 1-7-1960. Because of the excellent character roll and merit, the petitioner was subsequently promoted as Assistant Jailor on 18-9-1971 and confirmed against the said post with effect from18-9--1972.

(3.) Both the petitioner have asserted that time to time the Department had made an over all assessment of their service records and nothing adverse was communicated Time to time their service records were scrutinised and finding no adverse remarks promotions were given to the petitionerAt the relevant time the petitioners were posted as Assistant Jailor Munger District jail. It appears that on 27-6-1988 at about 6 P. m., an unfortunate incident took place inside the Jail premises in which one under trial prisoner was murdered by another under trial prisoner Prisoner. The incidendnt was reported to the Police and the First Information Report was lodged against of persons including the Jailor, Warder and Havildar. The petitioners do not figure in the first informat,on report. The investigation was carried out and at no stage petitioners were held responsible.