NIRANKAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . V. Jaishanker is personally present with his senior counsel Mr. J.P. Shukla. The proceedings recorded on 12.9.2003 are clear, in accordance with those directions Mr. V. Jaishanker is present, though Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh is not present in the court. Mr. V.N. Sinha, learned Government Counsel states that since Shri Arvind Kumar Singh has been transferred to Jharkhand sometime be given to him to inform Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh to again remain in attendance. He also submits that Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh was present in the Court on 29th September, 2003.

(2.) WHEN this Court enquired from Mr. V. Jaishanker that under what authority of law he had asked Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh to propose that whether appeal is to be allowed or dismissed, he submitted that in the Secretariat proceedings such proposals are to be called for from the first authority, who has passed the first order. Referring to Rules 9 and 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935 it is sought to be contended by Mr. V. Jaishanker in person that he was entitled to call for the comments. Rule 9 and Rule 10 refer to filing of an appeal. It says that what should be the contents of the appeal and Rule 10 says that if appeal is not competent, it does not comply with the provisions of Rule 9 or if it is not filed within the period of limitation and for the delay there is no explanation or if it is a repetition of the previous appeals before the same authority then the forwarding authority can withhold the appeal. A juxtapose reading of Rules 9 and 10 does not say that the appellate authority is required to call the comments of the subordinate authority or approve the order passed by him.

(3.) I am shocked to hear this explanation coming from a senior man like Mr. V.Jaishanker. It is unheard of that the appellate authority is calling for the comments of the subordinate authority and after receiving the recommendations made by the said authority it simply affixes his initials to say that the appeal is dismissed. Even if it is a prevalent procedure or practice in the secretariat then it is an absurd procedure. It is contrary to the principles of natural justice, it is contrary to the rules established by law and even it is against the common sense. I fail to understand that why the common sense is becoming uncommon in the Secretariat of this State. If the comments of the subordinate authority, Court or Tribunal are called and the appellate authority/appellate Court/appellate Tribunal agreeing with the comments affixes its signature then it will lead to a judicial chaos, it will create a chaotic situation, it will be judicial anarchism because no authority in its right sense would ever say that the order passed by it was bad. If the subordinate authority is obliged to say that the order passed by him was right and those observations are only to be accepted then filing of appeal, hearing a person, passing of an order is nothing but a farce. in the present matter the manner in which the appeal has been dismissed speaks of the understanding of the Secretary. It appears that he does not understand the basic fundamentals of law, he is unfit to hold the office of an appellate authority.