SRI BARUN CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE petitioner was a warden posted at Sheikhpura Divisional Jail where two undertrial managed to escape. A departmental proceeding was initiated and after giving full opportunity to the petitioner he and another similar employee was dismissed from service. The other employee Sri Rambahadur Singh preferred a statutory appeal and authorities Bihar Veterinary Association Versus State Of Bihar taking a sympathetic view of the matter reinstated him with a minimal scale punishment. The petitioner filed this writ petition initially against his dismissal order dated 30.6.2000, on 24.8.2000. While filing this writ petition he did not state that whether he had filed any appeal or not. Subsequently by supplementary affidavit, which was filed on 13.7.2001 he brought on record documents to show that the other person, who was similarly situated, had been taken back in service but here again he did not state anything about preferring an appeal nor of the fact that the other person was taken back in service pursuant to order in appellate proceeding. Now, when a fresh counter affidavit has been filed explaining why one person was taken back and why another, the petitioner was not taken back in service, an interlocutory application has been filed challenging the order, which has now been passed against the petitioner and in this application filed in the year 2007 it is stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal on 2.8.2000 and reminder and representation on 5.9.2000 and 10.10.2000, copies whereof have been annexed alongwith under certificate of posting receipts. It is then stated that a memo of appeal was then filed hand to hand on 27.3.2003.

(3.) IN the supplementary counter affidavit State has annexed the order purporting to be the appellate order based on 18.7.2007 by I.G. (Prison), Bihar, by which petitioner 'sappeal has been dismissed. In the said order it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner had not preferred any appeal against his dismissal order and the first memorandum in this regard was filed after three years of the dismissal order on or about 25.4.2003. The appellate authority even then condoned the delay and did not find any ground to interfere as in his opinion it was a gross dereliction of duty which facilitated escaping of two undertrial prisoners. In the appellate order it has also been considered as to distinction between the case of the petitioner and the other person, Sri Rambahadur Singh. It is clearly stated that the petitioner had earlier also been dismissed for dereliction of duty but considering his pathetic condition the appellate authority ordered his reinstatement with a warning for future, notwithstanding that, the petitioner was again found guilty of gross dereliction of duty, which was not the case with Sri Rambahadur Singh.