INDU BHUSHAN DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is member of Subordinate Judicial Service, has challenged the order dated 17th August, 2001 by which the respondent High Court of Jharkhand ordered for holding enquiry against the petitioner and also the letter dated 11.12.2001 by which the High Court has directed the District and Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum to continue with the departmental proceeding.

(2.) THE petitoner's case is that he entered in the Judicial Service in 1982 as Munsif and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge. While he was working as Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate,Jhanjharpur, Madhubani, he was put under suspension on 5.3.1998. The petitioner was served with chargesheet and he denied the charges by filing show cause. Thereafter, one Sudarshan Upadhyaya, District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani was appointed as Enquiry Officer who submitted enquiry report to the High Court. Patna on 28.4.2000. However, in the meantime, after bifurcation of the State, petitioner's cadre has been given to the State of Jharkhand. It is contended that the High Court of Jharkhand served on the petitioner a letter dated 17.8.2000 informing him that on the chargesheet which was sewed on him, a fresh proceeding has been initiated and one Sri S.N. Panday, District and Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner challenged the said decision by filing CWJC No. 5033/2000 (R) mainly on the ground that no fresh enquiry could be conducted unless the competent authority differs and rejects the enquiry report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in which petitioner was fully exonerated. The writ application was disposed of on 9.10.2001 with a direction to the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi to bring this fact to the notice of Hon'ble Chief Justice in its administrative side for taking a decision on the grievance of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of taking any decision on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the High Court of Jharkhand issued the impugned letter dated 11.12.2001 whereby the District and Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum has been directed by the High Court to continue with the departmental proceeding.

(3.) MR . M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent High Court of Jharkhand, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents have not ordered for fresh enquiry rather directed for continuance of the enquiry which is permissible in law. Learned counsel, submitted that in the enquiry report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani some serious defects were found and all the important witnesses were not examined by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the High Court of Jharkhand directed the Enquiry Officer to continue with the departmental enquiry and submit a conclusive report.