LPA No. 1456 of 2010 in CWJC No. 18375 of 2009 and Interlocutory Application Nos. 8287 and 8288 of 2010. Case: The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Chandeshwar Prasad Son of Late Tulsi Narayan. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | LPA No. 1456 of 2010 in CWJC No. 18375 of 2009 and Interlocutory Application Nos. 8287 and 8288 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.K. Shahi and Vikas Kumar, Advs. And For Respondents: Subodh Chandra Jha and Purusottam Prasad, Advs. |
| Judges | R.M. Doshit, C.J. and Jyoti Saran, J. |
| Issue | Limitation Act - Section 5; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2011 (2) PLJR 288 |
| Judgement Date | October 28, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Order:
R.M. Doshit, C.J.
Reg: LA.No. 8287 of 2010:
-
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the Appellant for condo nation of delay of 108 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
-
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned.
-
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
-
With the consent of the learned Advocates, the appeal is heard and decided today.
-
This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 18375 of 2009. The Respondent before us is the writ Petitioner.
-
The Respondent writ Petitioner was, while serving as Section Officer in the Department of Excise and Prohibition under the Government of Bihar, charged for the acts of commission and omission amounting to misconduct in respect of delaying certain files. After holding due inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, under his report dated 6th August, 2008, opined that out of five charges leveled against the delinquent, three were proved. In respect of the other two charges, the delinquent was given the benefit of doubt. On receipt of the inquiry report, on 6th August, 2008 the State Government issued a notice calling upon the delinquent to reply to the report of the Inquiry Officer and to show cause why he should not be punished. The said notice was replied to by the delinquent on 21st August, 2008. On receipt of the reply, by order dated 2nd December, 2008 made by the State Government, the delinquent was visited with the punishment of reduction in rank and on reduction to the post of Assistant, the delinquent was ordered to be placed at the minimum in the pay scale. Upon representation received from the delinquent, by impugned order dated 17th November, 2009, the aforesaid punishment was reduced, inter alia, to reduction in rank of Assistant for three years with effect from 2nd December, 2008.
-
Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 18375 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2010, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition on the sole ground that the disciplinary authority did not record its reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Consequently, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of punishment dated 17th November, 2009. It is further...
To continue reading
Request your trial