ARVIND KUMAR KHAN, SON OF SHRI PHANIBHUSAN KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+ P.O.+ P.S. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel who appears along with Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate on record and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Assisting Counsel to Principal Additional Advocate General No.1 for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission.

(2.) Amongst the other issues that has been raised in the present writ petition to question the order of compulsory retirement bearing Memo No.3362 dated 19.7.2016, a copy of which is impugned at Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is the specific argument of Mr. Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner being a gazetted Government employee of the State Government, it is the State Government who is the appointing authority and also the authority competent to impose the punishment(s) envisaged under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He submits that the order impugned having been passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition is a nullity.

(3.) Mr. Shahi has referred to the statements made in this regard at paragraph 39 of the writ petition to submit that specific issue has been raised by the petitioner as regarding the jurisdiction in the Principal Secretary to pass the impugned order and which is returned by an evasive reply given by the respondents in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner not having raised his objection earlier, the ground has been waived of.