JOGENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amreshwar Sahay, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, GP II assisted by his junior counsel Mr. S.N.P. Roy.

(2.) The writ petitioner in this case has prayed for quashing the resolution taken in the meeting dated 04.12.1995 as contained at Annexure 6, by which his appeal/representation for promotion has been rejected without assigning any reasons. Petitioner has also made a prayer for payment of full salary for the period 17.05.1986 to 10.10.1993 treating the said period to be on duty and consequentially for quashing of the order dated 15.04.1995 as contained at Annexure 3 to the writ application. Upon grant of the aforementioned remedies/reliefs, Petitioner has prayed for consequential benefits accruing in his favour pursuant to the quashing of the aforesaid two annexures, namely, Annexures 3 and 6. The principle ground of attack in so far as the aforementioned impugned orders are concerned, is that under the provisions of Rule 97(2) of the Bihar Service Code, once the Petitioner was fully exonerated from all charges, the Respondents were duty bound to pass a consequential order entitling the Petitioner to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been put under suspension.

(3.) In order to ascertain the aforementioned point canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be necessary to briefly enter into the facts of the case.