GANESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAINFUL, slow and arduous has been the progress of this case. This is best borne but by the simple fact that this application arises out of a departmental proceeding that commenced in 1963 when on 3-11-1963 the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. On 27-4-1979 an order was passed discharing the petitioner. When this order was under challenge before this Court in a writ petition this Court (and the petitioner) were informed that the discharge order was set aside in a departmental appeal that had been earlier filed by the petitioner The writ petition was, thus, rendered infructuous. The departmental proceeding (then 17 years old), however, was not allowed to come to an end as the appellate authority while allowing the petitioner's appeal gave directions that a fresh order should be passed in the case after rectifying the lacunae as pointed out by him in the departmental proceeding earlier held against the petitioner. The departmental proceeding, thus, lingered on and an order was then issued putting the petitioner once again under suspension. The petitioner was relieved from suspension at that stage by the intervention of this Court. Thereafter, it took five years and some more interference by this Court when a fresh order was passed on 21-6-1985 once again discharging the petitioner from service. This order was recalled by another order dated 17-8-1985 and was substituted by order dated 4-12-1986. This time the petitioner was spared the punishment of discharge and this order imposed on him the following two punishments:

(2.) THE petitioner now once again stands in this Court after about 28 years of the commencement of the departmental proceeding against him. THE instant writ petition was originally filed against the order dated 21-6-1985 which the petitioner was discharged from service. This order declared that as the petitioner had failed to submit his second show cause despite opportunities given to him, the punishment was being awarded to him in absence of a show cause from him. One of the grounds of challenge to this order was that such a statement was manifestly incorrect as it was evident from other circumstances and earlier orders passed by this Court that the petitioner had actually submitted his second show cause before the concerned authorities. Under the circumstances while admitting this application for hearing, this Court gave the following interim direction. THE pendency of this application will not preclude the Director, Animal Husbandly, Bihar respondent No. 2 in passing appropriate order on the second show cause filed by the petitioner, a copy of which has been handed over by him to learned Standing Counsel No. 1. THEreafter during the pendency of this application another order dated 17-8-1985 was passed recalling the order the order dated 21-6-1985 which originally came under challenge in this application and finally the order dated 4-12-1986 was passed which awarded the aforementioned punishment to the petitioner. This necessitated the filing of another petition bringing the two orders, (dated 17-8-1985 and 4-12-1986) on record and seeking reliefs in light of the subsequent developments. This application though erroneously filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is actually a petition for amendment of the original writ petition and seeks some additional and amended reliefs in view of the subsequent developments. By order dated 28-3-1990 this (amendment) petition was directed to be considered at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed this application and sought permission also to challenge the order dated 4-12-1986 a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the amendment petition. THE prayer is quite natural and logical. THE disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner now stands culminated in the order dated 4-12-1986 and in order to seek any relief it is essential for the petitioner to challenge that order and get it set aside. I may, at this stage, note that neither the writ petition nor the amendment petition are very happily or comprehensively drafted. This is, however, explained by the fact that the petitioner has been conducting this case in person. He has himself drafted those petitions and has appeared in Court in person. In that view of the matter, ingnoring any technical and procedural short coming. I allow the amendment petition and give opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 4-12-1986 and to amend and mofify his relief, accordingly.

(3.) NOW for the facts in some detail.