MINNATULAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Md. Minnatulah, a Panchayat Sewak in the district of Saharsa, for direction upon the respondents to pay him salary from May 2000 to 27.7.2000 and further, for December 1998. He also seeks quashing of an order bearing memo no. 122 -2 dated 27.7.2000 by which he has been placed under suspension.

(2.) THE petitioner had earlier approached this Court for quashing memo dated 24.5.2000 by which he had been directed to handover charge of the post of Panchayat Sewak, Saur Bazar held by him to one Md. Attaur Rahman. The contention of the petitioner was that the Block Development Officer was not competent to ask him to hand over charge of the post. Negativing the contention by order dated 20.2.2001 the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the District Magistrate, Saharsa to issue an order of posting within four weeks of receipt/ production of a copy of the order. Admittedly the petitioner had been placed under suspension earlier on 27.7.2000 by the aforesaid impugned memo no. 122 -2, which fact was apparently suppressed by when the case came up for final disposal on 20.2.2001. In fact, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents also did not mention this fact. After disposal of the case, the petitioner submitted his joining and he was posted at Saur Bazar on 30.6.2001 notwithstanding that he was under suspension.

(3.) PURSUANT to the said order except Advocate for the petitioner Sri Tara Nath Jha, others have filed show cause. In his affidavit Sri Ajeev Vatsraj, deponent of the counter affidavit, has stated that he was merely handed over copies of the authorisation letter, statement of facts and writ petition with a direction to swear counter affidavit, which he did and he had no personal knowledge about the case. Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, JC to GP 4 who appeared for the State has stated in his show cause that pursuant to the intimation sent by the office of the Government Pleader statement of facts duly signed by the District Magistrate Saharsa was received on the basis of which counter affidavit was prepared. In the said statement of facts no where it was mentioned that the petitioner had been put under suspension and as such there was no occasion for him to either suppress the fact about his suspension. He has further stated that after the counter affidavit was filed, copy thereof was taken away by the deponent for office use and even thereafter no further instruction was sent informing the office of the Government Pleader about the suspension of the petitioner. Copy of the statement of facts, duly signed by the District Magistrate on 20.12.2000, has been enclosed with the show cause. The District Magistrate in his show cause has stated that the statement of facts was prepared by the Block Development Officer, Mahisi, which was checked by the Sub -divisional Officer, Sadar, GP Saharsa and ADM Incharge Legal Section. He (DM) also verified the statements and finally approved the same. The explanation for not mentioning the fact about the petitioner 'ssuspension is that in the writ petition there was no averment regarding suspension since at the relevant time petitioner was not under suspension, the fact regarding suspension was not stated. Further, the order was passed in the file of Panchayat Section and the Legal Section was not aware of the order. In his show cause the petitioner has stated that he was not aware of the suspension as the order was neither communicated to him nor served upon him till date.