High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 02 PAT CK 0094

Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority vs Sitaram Paswan Son of Late Munshi Paswan

Patna High Court · Decided on 22 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Nilu Agrawal
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
1414 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

35 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

There is a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. Though

the Court is not satisfied as such with the reason assigned in I.A.

No.6186 of 2015, however, in the interest of justice the delay is

condoned. I.A. is allowed. Thereafter, The matter is taken up on

the merits.

2.

The order under challenge is dated 30th of January, 2015

passed in CWJC No.19282 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has

allowed the writ application of the sole private respondent, who

was the petitioner before the writ court, and quashed the order of

punishment of dismissal passed against him by the appellant

authorities.

3.

Four charges were drawn up against the private respondent.

A show cause was issued upon him. Based on the show cause and

without even considering the show cause as such, order of dismissal

was passed. The finding is that no enquiry was held worth the

name, if any, and the harshest punishment of dismissal was passed

on charges of absence of a few days here and there.

4.

Considering the procedure, which was adopted by the

appellants to get rid of the services of the private respondent, the

learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the erstwhile

Chairman of BIADA and directed payment of 75% of back wages

and all other retiral benefits to which the private respondent may be

entitled to.

5.

Taking the facts as well as the law into consideration, the

only option available before the learned Single Judge was to set

aside the order of dismissal passed against the private respondent to

be totally irrational, arbitrary and which has been passed without

following any procedure known in the canons of rule of law.

6.

It was a fit case in fact where exemplary cost should have

been awarded upon the appellants which this Court was inclined to

do even in appeal. However, on an earnest request and submission

made by counsel for the appellants the Court only cautioned and

warned the authorities that nobody can be law by himself because

law must prevail over and above every authority exercising power.

7.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.