SADANAND RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unfortunate that though grave charges against the petitioner were established in a departmental enquiry, he continues to be able to evade punishment due to fatal irregularities committed by the Bihar Public Service Commission ( 'the Commission ', for short) in passing the punishment order.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the Commission and was working as an Assistant Secretary at the material time. He was charged with corruption and gross misconduct. The charges against the petitioner were that he tampered with the records of the Commission, interpolated in the list of the selected candidates and made alterations in the marks obtained by his son in the selection test held by the Bihar Subordinate Services Selection Board (which was in existence at the material time) in order to secure recommendation in his favour. The charges evidently being grave in nature, he was put under suspension on 24.8.1994 and a departmental enquiry was held to investigate into the charges. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 14.9.1995 holding that the charges were established against the petitioner. The petitioner was then given a second show cause notice and he was finally dismissed from service by office order no. 526, dated 2.12.1995. He challenged that order before this court in CWJC No. 218/1996. In that case a learned single Judge of this court found and held that the order was issued by a person who did not have the legal authority to pass an order of dismissal against the petitioner. Consequently, this court interfered in the petitioner 's favour and quashed the order of dismissal by judgment and order, dated 3.2.1998.

(3.) HERE it is also important to note that 31.1.1996 was the petitioner 's date of retirement and that date went by while that case was pending before this court and much before the judgment and order was passed in that case on 3.2.1997. However, from a perusal of the judgment in CWJC No. 218/1996 it appears that neither party brought this fact to the notice of this court and there is no indication of the fact in that judgment that the petitioner would stand superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.1.1996.