JYOTINDRA PRASAD SON OF LATE BHAJOO PD.BHAGAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, S.C -11, for the State as also the counsel for the Accountant General.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the issues involved in this writ application it would be first necessary to extract the. prayer in this writ application, which reads as follows: - "That this application is being filed for quashing the office order vide no. 237 dated 10.8.2005 and memo no.3223 dated 10.8.2005 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department by which 95% pension and 45% gratuity of the petitioner have been stopped without assigning any reason and without any speaking order on the basis of a departmental proceeding in which there is no finding on charge nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8 and charge nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 the petitioner has been exonerated as per enquiry report. Thus it is apparent that the punishment given to the petitioner by the authority concerned without evidence and without assigning any reason which is mala fide, motivated and bad in the eye of law and also against the principle of natural justice too." It is thus clear that the impugned order of punishment had been passed with reference to some very serious charges against the petitioner, reading as follows: - (Local language)

(3.) THIS Court with regard to the afore mentioned relief having heard counsel for the parties and perused relevant materials on record and noticing pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner had earlier passed the following order on 23.3.2009: - "Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal for the petitioner, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 10 for respondent nos. 1 to 6, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary for respondent no. 7, and Mr.Arun Kumar Arun for respondent no. 8, are present. It appears that Vigilance Case No. 10 of 1996 was instituted against the. petitioner and others. Charge -sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken, and the petitioner and others are facing trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. Call for a report from him about the present position of the trial, the period for which the present petitioner was in custody as under -trial prisoner, and the expected time to be taken to conclude the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner also undertakes to file a supplementary affidavit giving the aforesaid details."