RAMASHISH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Munsif and was posted as Judicial Magistrate, Arrah, in the year 1976. In due course of his service, the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Munsif with effect from 3rd July, 1985 and was assigned the work of Judge In -charge Nazarat and administrative department of Hajipur. While posted at Seraikella, he was selected for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at its principal bench in Delhi by order dated 14th December, 1992. He was sent on deputation to the Patna Bench of the CAT and after completion of his deputation, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Chapra as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was posted at Chapra, one Prabhu Nath Singh entered into the petitioner 'sresidence in the Judicial Officer 'sColony at about 10.15 a.m. on 7th July, 1995 from where he was arrested by the Police. On the next date, a new item was also published in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 27th July, 1995 written by the District Judge seeking an explanation regarding the circumstances in which the said Prabhu Nath Singh was reported to have been arrested from the petitioner 'sofficial residence. According to the petitioner, inspite of the explanation given by him that the said Prabhu Nath Singh had suddenly rushed into his residential quarters fearing a police encounter and his life, the petitioner was served with a notification posting him as the Additional Munsif, Chatra in the Judgeship of Hazaribagh. The petitioner joined the demoted post on 13th September, 1995 and thereafter wrote to the Jharkhand High Court that he should be granted promotion. Not only was such representation kept pending but in addition the petitioner was rated as an officer of below average by the Inspecting Judge of the Judgeship of Saran in 1995.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner has moved the instant writ application and has contended that despite his long and meritorious service, he had not only been wrongly denied the benefit of promotion, but had also been subjected to compulsory retirement.