ASHOK KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.15823 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge has affirmed the order dated 16.09.2008, issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Purnea, whereby the appellant/petitioner has been held guilty of the charges levelled against him, and as a consequence thereof, has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The consequential order placing the appellant/petitioner under compulsory retirement dated 16.09.2008 is also the subject-matter of challenge in the writ application.

(2.) The appellant/petitioner, vide Memo No.443-45 dated 19.03.1996, issued under the signature of the District Judge, Purnea, was placed under suspension as he, while working as a Typist in the Civil Court, Purnea, was alleged to have committed forgery and practised fraud on the court by manipulating forged and fake bail order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with respect to accused persons, namely, Chandeshwari Mandal, Cheddi Mandal, Anandi Mandal and Prabhu Mandal, in Sessions Trial No.166 of 1985, thereby getting them unlawfully released on 19.06.1992. The allegation against the appellant/petitioner is that he had taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the accused Chandeshwari Mandal (since deceased) for manipulating the said order in his favour and facilitating his release.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that for the same charge, a criminal case, bearing K. Hat P.S. Case No.14 of 1996, was instituted at Purnea on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as also District & Sessions Judge under Sections 165, 166, 468, 471, 477, 120B and 225B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant and three of the aforementioned were made accused in the case. After investigation, the matter was sent up for trial, vide judgment dated 31.07.2000 passed in Trial No.1122 of 2000/G.R. Case No.62 of 1996, which finally ended in conviction of the two accused, namely, Cheddi Mandal and Anandi Mandal for the offences under Sections 466, 468, 120B and 225B of the IPC, whereas the appellant was held not guilty and was acquitted of the charge and was accordingly ordered to be released from custody.