PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the Judgment dated 14.07.2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in WP (S) No. 711 of 2003, whereby the prayer of the petitioner -appellant for quashing the order dated 06.01.2003 (Annexure 28/A to the writ petition which is Annexure 10 in this appeal) passed by respondent No. 5 Registrar, Co -operative societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi by virtue of which he was compulsorily retired by way of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding has been refused and the said writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge in para 5 of the impugned Judgment while dismissing the writ petition has observed thus : 'From perusal of the affidavits it transpire that the departmental proceeding was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Taking into consideration that the charges against the petitioner were prima facie proved, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was issued. In the light of the facts which have not been disputed by the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner right from the date of the appointment was not fair. It is clear that since the petitioner was practicing in the Patna High Court, he wanted to continue in the said Court in the capacity of Legal Assistant although his appointment was or the post on clerk of compassionate ground. Despite his appointment as a clerk he refused to discharge the duty of a clerk. In my opinion, therefore, there is no jurisdiction in interfering with the impugned order passed by the respondents.'

(3.) THE case of the respondents, inter alia, is that as a result of the cadre bifurcation the service of the petitioner - appellant was placed under the State of Jharkhand under the provisions of Section 72(1), of the Bihar Reorganization Act. 2000 vide, order dated 14.11.2000 wherein he has been shown as clerk (Lipik) and his deputation for working as Law Officer/Legal Assistant by the order of the Co -operative Department. Government of Bihar, Patna does not create any right to the petitioner -appellant to be deputed in the similar position and status in the Jharkhand State and his joining was accepted as clerk during the pendency of C.W.J. C. No. 225Q, of 2001, and he was entrusted to do the clerical work but the petitioner - appellant filed an application on 18.07.2001 to re -consider and review the order in respect of the clerical work and that he may be allowed to do the work of Legal Assistant and in all the correspondence made to the competent authorities the petitioner - appellant has described himself as holding the post of Legal Assistant of the Office of Registrar, Co -operative Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the petitioner -appellant was not interested in doing the clerical job assigned to him and the work allotted to him was re -assigned to Smt. Hiramati Kumari by modifying the order as per Annexure 14 to the writ petition and it is false to say that the petitioner -appellant was working in the office of the respondent No. 4 as the Law Officer/Legal Assistant from the date of his joining because no work of Legal Assistant was ever assigned to him and he, in the place of doing the work of clerk assigned to him by the Section Officer, without authority treating himself as Legal Assistant disobeyed the order of the higher authorities and the Section Officer of the department submitted a buffsheet on 14.12.2001 before respondent No. 5 making serious allegation against the petitioner -appellant regarding indiscipline and his misconduct and, thereafter, the petitioner -appellant instead of doing clerical job without any authority submitted unnecessary application and representation before the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 5 levelling imputation against the officers of the Department and he was directed to file the show cause as to why departmental proceeding be not initiated against him for indiscipline, disobedience and not performing the clerical work assigned to him and instead of filing a show cause he filed a representation making uncalled for and unwarranted allegations against the officers of the department and also sought permission to proceed against them under the several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and he was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and charge and supplementary charges were settled against him and the departmental proceeding was conducted by the Inquiring Officer in which the charges were prima facie established though in spite of service of notice of the departmental proceeding and its publication in the newspaper he did not participate therein and as a result of which after second notice (Annexure 22 to the writ petition) to him, the disciplinary authority i.e., respondent No. 5 agreeing with the Inquiry Report passed the punishment of his compulsory retirement vide, Annexure 28/A to the writ petition corresponding to Annexure 10 to this appeal. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner -appellant in person that he was provisionally transferred in the office of the Registrar, Co -operative Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi on bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar where he has joined on 15.02.2001 and he has not been finally allocated to the Jharkhand State under Section 72 of the Bihar Re -organization Act. 2000 and his matter has been referred to the State Advisory Committee for taking final decision regarding his allocation to the State of Jharkhand and in this view of the matter he is under the administrative control of the State of Bihar and respondent No. 5 had no jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceeding against him and to impose punishment of his compulsory retirement and it is the State of Bihar which is competent in respect thereof. It has also been contended that respondent No. 5 cannot be the disciplinary authority with regard to this petitioner -appellant and he is definitely not his appointing authority.