BANSHI DHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents commanding upon them to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to give effect to Annexure-14 to the writ petition whereby the member, Board of hevenue, gave certain directions to his subordinate officers in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compose. The petitioner who was appointed as a Kanungo was employed at the relevant time under the State of Bihar and joined his post on 26/1/1984. A criminal case was instituted as against the petitioner and the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 16/6/1962 as would appear from Annexure-5 to the writ application. The petitioner, however, ultimately by order dated 18/2/1971 passed by the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Special Case No. 1/68 was discharged in terms of the provisions of Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 18 8. The said order is contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. The petitioner received subsistence allowance from June, 1962 to February, 1963 and again received such allowances from 19/12/1977. The petitioner's further case is that he made various representations and went up to the Member Board of Revenue who is the highest administrative officer so far as the Revenue Department of the State is concerned. By various orders and, in particular, by order dated 20/4/1981 (Annexure-14), the Member Board of Revenue asked the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh to reinstate the petitioner and pay all his back wages.

(3.) Mr. B. Y. Kishore learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this is a case in which the apathetic attitude on the part of the State of Bihar is writ large on the face of the records. He submits that since 1966, the petitioner had been under suspension, but, for a brief period he was not paid any subsistence allowance. He further submitted that although the learned court of the Special Subordinate Judge in the aforementionec. criminal case did not find any ground even to frame charges as against the petitioner, and, discharged him by an order dated 18/2/1971, but, he was neither reinstated nor paid his subsistence allowance As a matter ot fact, as has been seen hereinbefore, only subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner again from 19-12-1977 although no fresh order of suspaa sion was passed nor any departmental enquiry was initiated.