RANJIT PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an officer of Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service. The respondents to this application are the State of Bihar, the Patna High Court and Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, retired Judge of this Court.

(2.) THE prayers of the petitioner originally were firstly, to issue a writ of mandamus upon the State of Bihar to promote the petitioner as Additional District Judge : secondly, a writ of mandamus upon the High Court to confirm the petitioner as Subordinate Judge and thirdly, to quash the suspension of the petitioner effected by the order of the High Court dated 21 -2 -1980 (annexure -2). Subsequently the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ application. The amendment prayed for was to add the prayer for quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the High Court by order dated 21. -2 -1980 which is annexure -5 to this application. The amendment petition was filed on 17 -9 -1981. The order for initiation of departmental proceeding having been passed on 21 -2 -1980 was very much in existence when the petitioner was suspended. That prayer, therefore, should have been made in the main application itself. The amendment petition was put up for consideration before N.P. Singh and S. Narain, JJ. on 17 -9 -1981. The Bench ordered that the amendment petition be considered at the time of final hearing of the main writ application. When we took up hearing of the application, the prayer for amendment of the petition was pressed before us. Not going by technicality, we allowed the prayer for amendment of the application by adding one more prayer. Thus the fourth prayer of the petitioner is to quash the departmental disciplinary proceeding against him. At this stage, 1 would only like to state that the Enquiring Officer, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has already submitted his report and has found the petitioner has been called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.

(3.) THE submission on behalf of the petitioner is, that respondent No. 3 was an influential member of the Standing Committee. Being Judge Incharge Administrative Department, his mala fide action was the cause for the petitioner not being recommended by the High Court for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner has averred that he was a very good officer with brilliant record of service for more than nineteen years, but all of a sudden he became a bad officer because he suddenly incurred the displeasure of respondent No. 3. To claim a brilliant record of service, whatever may be the fact is usual for every officer moving this Court for relief. No officer has up till now stated that he did not have a brilliant record of service. Be that as it may, the assertion of the petitioner is that when respondent No. 3 became Judge Incharge Administrative Department in May, 1976 he recommended the name of Ramakant Singh for the special post of Under Secretary. Law Department by ignoring the petitioner. The reason, according to the petitioner, for his being by -passed is that Ramakant Singh was a relation of Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh. The action of the Standing Committee was tainted by mala fide. Thus contended learned Counsel for the petitioner.