ASHOK PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has sought to press I.A. No. 6738/2015 which seeks impleadment of one Shri N.N. Sinha as respondent in the writ petition. He is said to be the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand whose impleadment has been sought with a bare assertion in the instant I.A. of malafide being practiced by him against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however sought to rely upon the statements made in reply to the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 2 filed on 08.12.2015 specifically paragraph -4 and 5 to substantiate the allegations of malafide. Relevant paragraph aver that during the period of Shri N.N. Sinha as Secretary of Road Construction Department, petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.06.2009 which was stayed in WPS No. 3046/2009. It is alleged that the order was not complied immediately, but belatedly by an office order dated 18.01.2010. It is further stated therein that the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of demotion to minimum scale of pay and full salary for the period of suspension was withheld.

(2.) He was also posted on non -work post. The order of punishment dated 01.01.2011 was quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 5444/2008 by judgment dated 12.07.2011 with an observation that it was without application of mind. Petitioner was reinstated in his original scale of pay with consequential benefits after the contempt petition was pursued. These are the averments made to substantiate the allegations of malafide against the said person for his impleadment in the present writ application where petitioner has assailed the order of repatriation to the parent Road Construction Department bearing Notification No. 3565 dated 23.10.2015.

(3.) Having considered the instant prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and facts relied upon through reply to the counter affidavit, this Court is not persuaded to come to the conclusion that the aforesaid sequence of facts do make out a case for impleading the said person as respondent by name on the grounds of malafide being practiced against the petitioner in the present impugned order. The sequence of facts contained at para -4 and 5 only show that the petitioner had suffered suspension and punishment during the period when the person concerned N.N. Sinha was holding the post of Secretary, Road Construction Department. Petitioner as such is holding the substantive post of Superintending Engineer and any decision in relation to his suspension or punishment could only be taken by the competent authority that, according to the learned counsel for the State, would be the Hon'ble Minister of the Department. The impugned order at Annexure -3 has been issued by the Rural Works Department. The prayer of the petitioner to implead the said person N.N. Sinha as private respondent on the assertion of malafide, is not tenable on facts and in law. I.A. is therefore rejected.