BANCHHA RAM CHAKRABARTI, SON OF LATE SURBESHWAR CHAKARBORTY, RETIRED A.S.K. TRW, RANCHI, RESIDENT OF HESAG, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION HATIA, RANCHI Vs. THE JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RANCHI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2003, the applicant filed W.P.(S) No. 5132 of 2005 which was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2013, quashing order dated 30.12.2003.

(2.) Mrs. M.M. Pal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant refers to order dated 20.11.2013 and submits that once order dated 30.12.2003 stood quashed, it was not open to the contemnor/opposite party no. 2 to reiterate the said order with modification that the benefit to the applicant would be admissible with effect from 23.09.1993 instead of 01.04.1997. Referring to findings recorded in paragraph no. 9 of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5132 of 2005, the learned Senior counsel submits that this Court found that the departmental proceeding initiated against the applicant for unauthorised occupation of official quarter was motivated and the evidence recorded in the departmental proceeding was not substantiated by any evidence. It is thus submitted that the punishment order dated 15.05.2000 has also stood quashed still, vide order dated 20.11.2013 the same has been reiterated by the contemnor/opposite party no. 2.

(3.) The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that order dated 26.04.2013 has been complied with by the opposite parties. It is stated that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5132 of 2005 challenging the change in date for grant of 2nd time-bound promotion. In the proceeding of W.P.(S) No. 5132 of 2005 the petitioner did not challenge the punishment order dated 15.05.2000 and therefore, even though this Court has expressed opinion on the initiation of departmental proceeding against the applicant for unauthorised occupation of the official quarter, the punishment order dated 15.05.2000 cannot be said to have been quashed by this Court.