STATE OF BIHAR Vs. LALAN PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred by the State of Bihar is directed against the judgment and order, dated 11.7.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 8606 of 2001), filed by respondent no. 5, Bindeshwar Rajak.

(2.) THE respondent was a Tax Collector in Gaya Revenue Division of the Water Resources Department. He came to the Court challenging an order, dated 9.9.2000 passed by the Special Officer -cum -Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department by which he affirmed the order of the petitioner 'sremoval from service passed by the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gaya on 2.5.1996. Before the Writ Court, it was urged on the petitioner 'sbehalf that though his Appointing Authority was the Deputy Collector, the impugned order of removal from service was passed by the Deputy Secretary in the Department. It was contended on his behalf that as a result the petitioner was denied the remedy of departmental appeal and this was in violation of principles of natural justice. The Writ Court accepted the submission and set aside the order of removal, directed for the petitioner 'sreinstatement and allowed the writ petition. In this regard, the Writ Court made the following observations. The matter, in this view of the matter, could have been decided by the disciplinary authority and since the order has been passed by the higher officer, it amounts to negation of the principles of natural justice which could have been applied in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner at the face of the order impugned, may not file any appeal and the right of appeal thus, was not made available to the petitioner by virtue of the order as contained in Annexure 1.

(3.) MS . Nivedita Nirvikar, G.P. XVI appearing in support of the appeal submitted that the view taken by the Writ Court was quite incorrect and wrong both on tacts and in law. As a matter of fact, the respondent -writ petitioner was not denied any right of appeal and no prejudice was caused to him. She further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Writ Court had no application to the facts of the case.